Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Should Republicans Adopt "The Obama Rule" Of Executive Governance?
Short version: No.
Longer version: There's a debate going on over how the GOP should best respond if Obama goes through with his extra-Constitutional power grab to legalize millions of illegal aliens. Charles Cooke argues that embracing Obama's view of unlimited executive power will lead to some very dark places we don't want to go.I am afraid that I consider this approach to be little short of suicidal, and I can under no circumstances look forward to a system in which the executive may pick and choose which laws he is prepared to enforce. On the contrary: I consider the idea to be a grave and a disastrous one, and I would propose that any such change is likely to usher in chaos at first and then to incite a slow, tragic descent into the monarchy and caprice that our ancestors spent so long trying to escape. During the last 500 years or so, the primary question that has faced the Anglo-American polities has been whether the executive or the legislature is to be the key proprietor of domestic power. In one form or another, this query informed both the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution that followed it, and it was at the root of the Revolution in America. Cast your eyes across the Declaration of Independence and you will notice that the majority of the “long train of abuses and usurpations” have to do with the violation of the rights of assemblies by individuals who believe themselves to be the dominant arbiter of the state’s affairs. ... Sean Trende is absolutely correct when he maintains that constitutional “norms” are nigh on impossible to retrieve once they have been abandoned. But, far from providing a justification for surrender, this is precisely why conservatives should refuse to “shrug” their shoulders and wait patiently for revenge.Embracing the "fight fire with fire" position in The Federalist is Gabe.
Cooke thus needs to face a hard truth: Obama will probably get away with his super-DACA, just like he got away with DACA and with the Obamacare delays. The constitutional mechanism to stop him—impeachment and conviction—has largely atrophied, and in any case, the incoming Senate would never have the votes to convict. The political mechanism to stop him—holding government funding hostage against Obama’s good behavior—will be a repeat of the failed shutdown strategy of 2013. And the legal mechanism to respond—Speaker Boehner’s still unfiled lawsuit premised on the concept of legislative standing—is a long shot, at best. ... Instead, because they cannot be reasoned with, Democrats must be shown the error of their ways. There will be no faster route to squealing outrage from the Left than applying the Obama Rule to one of their beloved federal programs. I particularly favor selective enforcement of the Clean Air Act to relieve the regulatory burden on businesses as the most likely candidate to induce Democrats to immediately repudiate the Obama Rule, but I think the case can be made for broad tax reforms as an alternative, particularly if there is resistance to such reforms in Congress. Just as Obama instructed the Treasury Department not to enforce the Obamacare reporting requirement for employers, the next Republican president could instruct Treasury not to enforce, say, income taxes outside certain reformed brackets.Personally, I agree with Cooke. It's hard to see how the solution to lawlessness is more lawlessness. Conservatives are pretty big on the Constitution. The idea that you can break it to save it, strikes me as nonsensical as anything a liberal like Ezra Klein would say about the Constitution. Yes, it's hard and sometimes unpopular to use the legitimate constitutional processes (the power of the purse (added thought: No Senate confirmations for Obama appointees)) to correct the use of illegitimate ones. So? That's why people swear an oath to "preserve and protect" the Constitution...it's a sacred duty. If it were easy or unimportant you wouldn't have to swear to do it before you got to hold office. Embracing the Obama view would mean we would no longer be a government of laws but of men. Sure we'd be throwing away our birthright as free people but hey, at least we'll get ours next time! Personally, I'll leave that ethos to the liberals. Yes, Obama can legalize millions of illegal immigrants but only temporarily. That's bad but it can be dealt with without further damage to our system of liberty. The solution is rather simple....the next time a Republican wins the White House, instead of breaking a whole bunch of laws to teach Democrats a lesson, they can simply rescind Obama's orders and return the country to the rule of law. Of course we all know a Republican President won't do that because it would be politically unpopular with Latino voters. And no doubt one argument against such an action would be that it would be unfair to to do this to people who came to depend on the word of the government to organize their lives. Which of course is the very reason not to embrace rule by fiat...people need to know the law means something and have faith in how it's created and administered. Oh and on a practical note, if the GOP doesn't have the courage to fight this legislatively or repeal it when they have the presidency, do you really think a guy like Jeb Bush is going to have the political fortitude or even the desire to start rewriting the Clean Air Act (Republicans want to poison children!) or the tax code (Making the Koch brothers richer!)? Really? The GOP is forever promising to be tough....next time. How many promises to fight later instead of now when it matters are you willing to buy? So many of the problems government is forever trying to solve are efforts to fix the damage of earlier government actions. The idea of undoing the original decision is never consider. All we ever do is add another screwball piece of equipment to our Rube Goldberg machine. That's what embracing the Obama doctrine would do...try and solve a problem by adding more problems. Fighting now and using the legitimate constitutional tools available is so crazy it just might work. If nothing else, it's worth a shot before giving up on 200 plus years of American liberty.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
Agreed. We don't need our own Sulla just because they have their Marius.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 18, 2014 10:31 AM (YYJjz)
2
Yeah dandy, all fine and good. But see I am more a low class person and proud of it. I fight in the gutter. Shut the Fuckin Government down and START from there. The very foundations of our Republic are at stake.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 10:31 AM (M0mf2)
3
Welcome back Drew, you're missed when you're scarce.
The issue I have is refusing to punch the leftoids in the nose on their overreach leads to what we in effect have had since 2000 anyway.
The liberal media succeeding in having two sets of rules almost overtly displayed and bragged on.
Democrat Preznits shouldn't have to deal with Republicans...
Democrat ideas are SO GREAT they can't stand to be debated and win on points! (AGW Kult, Ogabecare, Gun Treaties, Iran Foreign Policy felching)
At this point we are living in a nation where I am denied equal political representation of my personal desires on policy because I foolishly it seems expect at some point the GOP to say, "enough!"
The issue I have is refusing to punch the leftoids in the nose on their overreach leads to what we in effect have had since 2000 anyway.
The liberal media succeeding in having two sets of rules almost overtly displayed and bragged on.
Democrat Preznits shouldn't have to deal with Republicans...
Democrat ideas are SO GREAT they can't stand to be debated and win on points! (AGW Kult, Ogabecare, Gun Treaties, Iran Foreign Policy felching)
At this point we are living in a nation where I am denied equal political representation of my personal desires on policy because I foolishly it seems expect at some point the GOP to say, "enough!"
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:31 AM (/4AZU)
4
Does extra-constitutional power grab come with a cape?
Posted by: Mr.KnowItAll at November 18, 2014 10:31 AM (uJK1E)
5
1 Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 18, 2014 10:31 AM (YYJjz)
I think Jugears fancies himself the Gracchi brothers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi
I think Jugears fancies himself the Gracchi brothers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:32 AM (/4AZU)
6
"...The solution is rather simple....the next time a Republican wins the White House,....."
Ha Ha, that's funny.
Ha Ha, that's funny.
Posted by: Not an Artist at November 18, 2014 10:33 AM (uRumV)
7
Cooke thus needs to face a hard truth: Obama will probably get away with
his super-DACA, just like he got away with DACA and with the Obamacare
delays. The constitutional mechanism to stop him impeachment and
conviction has largely atrophied, and in any case, the incoming Senate
would never have the votes to convict.
And I repeat for the third time. This is NOT the problem. The problem is spineless Republicans took it off the table w/o any prompting and nothing in return.
his super-DACA, just like he got away with DACA and with the Obamacare
delays. The constitutional mechanism to stop him impeachment and
conviction has largely atrophied, and in any case, the incoming Senate
would never have the votes to convict.
And I repeat for the third time. This is NOT the problem. The problem is spineless Republicans took it off the table w/o any prompting and nothing in return.
Posted by: Vic at November 18, 2014 10:33 AM (u9gzs)
8
Barack Obama is a SCOAMT.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) with a new job at November 18, 2014 10:34 AM (kff5f)
9
Gabe is a Caesarist.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 10:34 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: eman at November 18, 2014 10:34 AM (MQEz6)
11
The GOP will calm everyone down. They won't do anything provocative or inflammatory. They will be good stewards of government and the next President will use the eight years in office to sooth the fears of the population so when the next Democrat President gets elected the process can continue as intended.
Posted by: Geof Francs at November 18, 2014 10:35 AM (qJK0t)
12
In 1890 I took a little trip.... down to the orchard where I took myself a sit...
Posted by: Lucy at November 18, 2014 10:35 AM (84SRe)
13
Republicans should adopt a new saying. Surrender is our creed.
Posted by: Vic at November 18, 2014 10:35 AM (u9gzs)
Posted by: Bob Belcher at November 18, 2014 10:35 AM (yshTX)
15
Conservatives are used to be pretty big on the Constitution.
Fixed it for ya, Drew.
This is a point when Our Betters -- both in Congress and the media -- need to grow a pair, put on their Big Boy Pants and stand up to lawlessness. Otherwise, we might just as well hand the country over to our new overlords streaming in across the border.
We've heard all the arguments about how a (half)black President should be treated with kid gloves, how we will look like horrible racist inhuman bastards if we insist that laws apply to all, and how we will be excoriated by Democrats if we don't "compromise" with them, which in plain English means giving in to everything they want.
This doesn't seem at all difficult to me. It is a crisis with potential effects worse than any past war. When the SHTF, you have to react. Or lie down and die.
Fixed it for ya, Drew.
This is a point when Our Betters -- both in Congress and the media -- need to grow a pair, put on their Big Boy Pants and stand up to lawlessness. Otherwise, we might just as well hand the country over to our new overlords streaming in across the border.
We've heard all the arguments about how a (half)black President should be treated with kid gloves, how we will look like horrible racist inhuman bastards if we insist that laws apply to all, and how we will be excoriated by Democrats if we don't "compromise" with them, which in plain English means giving in to everything they want.
This doesn't seem at all difficult to me. It is a crisis with potential effects worse than any past war. When the SHTF, you have to react. Or lie down and die.
Posted by: MrScribbler at November 18, 2014 10:35 AM (PoKIA)
16
Yes, Obama can legalize millions of illegal immigrants but only temporarily. That's bad but it can be dealt with without further damage to our system of liberty. The solution is rather simple....the next time a Republican wins the White House, instead of breaking a whole bunch of laws to teach Democrats a lesson, they can simply rescind Obama's orders and return the country to the rule of law.
Will.
Never.
Happen.
I can't believe it, but I actually agree with Gabe. String the goddamn Dems up by the balls.
Will.
Never.
Happen.
I can't believe it, but I actually agree with Gabe. String the goddamn Dems up by the balls.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at November 18, 2014 10:35 AM (zF6Iw)
17
10 Gabe, there is no " unless you don't feel like it" clause in the Constitution.
Posted by: eman at November 18, 2014 10:34 AM (MQEz6)
But there should be, let's interpret the intent that way then...
Posted by: eman at November 18, 2014 10:34 AM (MQEz6)
But there should be, let's interpret the intent that way then...
Posted by: SCOTUS at November 18, 2014 10:35 AM (DNTer)
18
the failed shutdown strategy of 2013.
Really tired of this argument.
The GOPe just increased their hold on the House and took the Senate.
The GOPe should "fail" more often.
(And fcuk Joe ScarbRINO and his sanctimonious lectures.)
Really tired of this argument.
The GOPe just increased their hold on the House and took the Senate.
The GOPe should "fail" more often.
(And fcuk Joe ScarbRINO and his sanctimonious lectures.)
Posted by: Citizen X at November 18, 2014 10:36 AM (7ObY1)
19
And where,pray tell, would Gabe's strategy lead? They abuse their power, install illegitimate policies. We win an election, we abuse our power, throw out their illegitimate policies, replace them with our own. And then the Democrats win the WH again, and the collapse of rule of law continues apace. It's a recipe for our nation's destruction.
Posted by: Lincolntf at November 18, 2014 10:36 AM (2cS/G)
20
There is no middle ground between the law and lawlessness.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 10:36 AM (evdj2)
21
We can NOT wait for a Republican to grab the White House. The damage this cock sucker is doing to America and to our Constitution, the Republic, Our Separations of Power, The Checks and Balances that have basically keep America on the Straight and Narrow for all these years are crumbling. We have to act NOW. Some things just CAN NOT BE REVERSED.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 10:36 AM (M0mf2)
22
6 Posted by: Not an Artist at November 18, 2014 10:33 AM (uRumV)
Quite I think we won our last Presidency in 2004....
The Democrats swore a blood oath no amount of cheating would be shameful enough to force them to respect the will of "Gruber's idiots."
I could type "and there will be blood."
But there will not in fact be any fight against the Media/Donk fraud collusion, and as such we are now at last settling into the genuine Imperial stage of the death of the Republic...
without any coalition of Senators paying their own coalition's hard men young sons to go wreck the out of control parts of the other sides' coalition...
b/c we have no true "side" it is the governors versus the governed.
Quite I think we won our last Presidency in 2004....
The Democrats swore a blood oath no amount of cheating would be shameful enough to force them to respect the will of "Gruber's idiots."
I could type "and there will be blood."
But there will not in fact be any fight against the Media/Donk fraud collusion, and as such we are now at last settling into the genuine Imperial stage of the death of the Republic...
without any coalition of Senators paying their own coalition's hard men young sons to go wreck the out of control parts of the other sides' coalition...
b/c we have no true "side" it is the governors versus the governed.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:36 AM (/4AZU)
23
and in before the Republican toadies!
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 10:37 AM (evdj2)
24
Bibi orders houses of two Palestinian terrorists destroyed.. heh
Posted by: Yip at November 18, 2014 10:37 AM (84SRe)
Posted by: eman at November 18, 2014 10:37 AM (MQEz6)
26
Pointless discussion.
Republicans will do nothing, Constitutionally or otherwise, to roll back anything done by this administration. Why would they ? They agree with most of it.
Whatever D is elected in 2016 will pile it higher and deeper still.
If there were an opposition party it would be a different story.
Republicans will do nothing, Constitutionally or otherwise, to roll back anything done by this administration. Why would they ? They agree with most of it.
Whatever D is elected in 2016 will pile it higher and deeper still.
If there were an opposition party it would be a different story.
Posted by: sock_rat_eez, feeling as bleak as the weather outside at November 18, 2014 10:37 AM (go6ud)
27
Bibi orders houses of two Palestinian terrorists destroyed.. heh
Posted by: Yip at November 18, 2014 10:37 AM (84SRe)
What does "Heh" mean?
Posted by: Yip at November 18, 2014 10:37 AM (84SRe)
What does "Heh" mean?
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 10:38 AM (M0mf2)
28
26 Posted by: sock_rat_eez, feeling as bleak as the weather outside at November 18, 2014 10:37 AM (go6ud)
Obama's America-the governors versus the governed
Obama's America-the governors versus the governed
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:38 AM (/4AZU)
29
I'm with Drew and Cooke on this one.
If we're not fighting to protect the rule of law, then what's the fucking point of any of it?
If we're not fighting to protect the rule of law, then what's the fucking point of any of it?
Posted by: Andy at November 18, 2014 10:39 AM (LxxIK)
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 10:39 AM (evdj2)
31
If the Republicans had spines, and were willing to stand up to the libs, I'd agree with you. They won't even shut the government down! But the Constitution is broken, and there seems to be no will to fix it, and in fact a tremendous amount of will to finish destroying it.
So unless we can convince the Republicans to fight back, to have no fear of government shutdowns, to have no fear of impeachment, the Obama rule may be the only way to protect the our rights from liberal encroachment.
The Libs have used the government to deliberately inflict harm on us, and the Republicans have stood by and let it happen. Instead of retaliating and make the libs pay for their crimes.
So unless we can convince the Republicans to fight back, to have no fear of government shutdowns, to have no fear of impeachment, the Obama rule may be the only way to protect the our rights from liberal encroachment.
The Libs have used the government to deliberately inflict harm on us, and the Republicans have stood by and let it happen. Instead of retaliating and make the libs pay for their crimes.
Posted by: Iblis at November 18, 2014 10:39 AM (U0ndG)
32
29 I'm with Drew and Cooke on this one.
If we're not fighting to protect the rule of law, then what's the fucking point of any of it?
Posted by: Andy at November 18, 2014 10:39 AM (LxxIK)
+1,000
If we're not fighting to protect the rule of law, then what's the fucking point of any of it?
Posted by: Andy at November 18, 2014 10:39 AM (LxxIK)
+1,000
Posted by: MikeH at November 18, 2014 10:39 AM (DNTer)
33
Gabe also forgets about doublethink; it will be no problem for right-thinking liberals to be outraged! that a Republican president is running roughshod over the constitution while at the same time being proud of all the great achievements enacted due to the benevolence of Ear Leader, who worked tirelessly to make America great while at the same time scoring 18 holes-in-one on the golf course.
Posted by: Anachronda at November 18, 2014 10:39 AM (o78gS)
34
Totes agree with Citizen X. The shutdown was only a failure to the usual suspects--the Democrat-Media complex and its RINO enablers.
Posted by: Furious George at November 18, 2014 10:39 AM (UlJ3l)
35
If there is going to be any pushback against Obama lawlessness, it's going to have to come directly from the "stupid" citizenry. Don't wait for the GOP to do anything. That's not going to happen, at least not in any meaningful way.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 18, 2014 10:39 AM (Boytw)
Posted by: Citizen X at November 18, 2014 10:40 AM (7ObY1)
37
I particularly favor selective enforcement of the Clean Air Act to relieve the regulatory burden on businesses as the most likely candidate to induce Democrats to immediately repudiate the Obama Rule
-Gabe
Companies would still be bound by state and local eviromental laws, which in many states - for example California - have even more stringent than Federal law.
No fear there. Dems will just let the states and courts do their bidding.
I particularly favor selective enforcement of the Clean Air Act to relieve the regulatory burden on businesses as the most likely candidate to induce Democrats to immediately repudiate the Obama Rule
-Gabe
Companies would still be bound by state and local eviromental laws, which in many states - for example California - have even more stringent than Federal law.
No fear there. Dems will just let the states and courts do their bidding.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 18, 2014 10:40 AM (kdS6q)
38
"The idea that you can break it to save it, strikes me as nonsensical as anything a liberal like Ezra Klein would say about the Constitution."
Idunno. It worked for Lincoln.
Just pointing that out, I'm noncommittal at this point. two more years of this crap & it may be unfixable anyway.
Idunno. It worked for Lincoln.
Just pointing that out, I'm noncommittal at this point. two more years of this crap & it may be unfixable anyway.
Posted by: West at November 18, 2014 10:40 AM (1Rgee)
39
Bingo.
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at November 18, 2014 10:40 AM (go6ud)
40
Constitution is dead.
This is more of the Latinization of America.
We are entering the age of the American Caudillo.
We'll oscillate between left-wing authoritarian Caudillos and right-wing authoritarian Caudillos -- with a lot of blood spilled with each oscillation.
This is more of the Latinization of America.
We are entering the age of the American Caudillo.
We'll oscillate between left-wing authoritarian Caudillos and right-wing authoritarian Caudillos -- with a lot of blood spilled with each oscillation.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 10:40 AM (ZPrif)
41
Thought the whole point of Obama's executive power grab was to implement changes that ensure there will never be a Republican president, or Republican majority ever again.
So....who cares what Republicans will do in a hypothetical future?
Stop it NOW before he irreparably damages our country.
So....who cares what Republicans will do in a hypothetical future?
Stop it NOW before he irreparably damages our country.
Posted by: Lizzy at November 18, 2014 10:40 AM (ABcz/)
42
The long political play is to let Obama do whatever he wants, call him out for the wrongness of it, but do nothing like shut the government down, in whole or part. In this way the GOP can take the high road, complain about the action, express outrage at the precedent, but allow Obama and the Dems to own it. The risk there is that his executive actions turn out to have a positive effect and perception among the electorate. I estimate that risk as low. He is POTUS for two more years, at least half of which will be the lamest of lame duck.
Posted by: steve walsh at November 18, 2014 10:40 AM (UPLmD)
43
And I repeat for the third time. This is NOT the problem. The
problem is spineless Republicans took it off the table w/o any prompting
and nothing in return.
This.
Also the "failed shutdown" nonsense. Last I checked, we just gave the Democrats an historic drubbing. The continued "failed shutdown" line seems to be predicated on the one making it suggesting he can see alternate timelines.
problem is spineless Republicans took it off the table w/o any prompting
and nothing in return.
This.
Also the "failed shutdown" nonsense. Last I checked, we just gave the Democrats an historic drubbing. The continued "failed shutdown" line seems to be predicated on the one making it suggesting he can see alternate timelines.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) with a new job at November 18, 2014 10:40 AM (kff5f)
44
I wonder why Obama is not acting already on amnesty? Is he afraid of the consequences of his own actions? Are other Democrats, out of public earshot, threatening their own actions?
Of course all of this remains moot until action is taken.
Of course all of this remains moot until action is taken.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - We Blanked Out at the Outrage Outlet! at November 18, 2014 10:40 AM (hLRSq)
45
Heh means I laugh approvingly... smash 'em... It's the way it's done over there... you commit a brutal crime... the Government will kill you and smash your family home too.
Posted by: Yip at November 18, 2014 10:41 AM (84SRe)
Posted by: Bigby's Farm Hands at November 18, 2014 10:41 AM (3ZtZW)
47
Democrats would cut off funding and impeach a Republican version of Obama.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 10:41 AM (ZPrif)
48
29 Posted by: Andy at November 18, 2014 10:39 AM (LxxIK)
If the only way we can assert our rights and historic liberty is to clap like trained seals while Boehner "sues" Obama in what is 97% most likely a futile gesture there is nothing worth fighting for anyway.
It's done, the die is most likely cast and the ONLY elections that matter from here on out are Presidential ones.
The US would have been lucky to be Brazil with nukes instead we're gonna be Venezuela with old nuke schematics.
If the only way we can assert our rights and historic liberty is to clap like trained seals while Boehner "sues" Obama in what is 97% most likely a futile gesture there is nothing worth fighting for anyway.
It's done, the die is most likely cast and the ONLY elections that matter from here on out are Presidential ones.
The US would have been lucky to be Brazil with nukes instead we're gonna be Venezuela with old nuke schematics.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:41 AM (/4AZU)
49
Charles Cooke argues that embracing Obama's view of unlimited executive power
will lead to some very dark places we don't want to go .
I'll take "Where We Already Are", for $200, Alex.
will lead to some very dark places we don't want to go .
I'll take "Where We Already Are", for $200, Alex.
Posted by: rickb223 at November 18, 2014 10:41 AM (+nacu)
50
36 What does "Heh" mean?
Try reading it backwards.
Posted by: Citizen X at November 18, 2014 10:40 AM (7ObY1)
Doc, Note: I Dissent. A Fast Never Prevents A Fatness. I Diet On Cod.
Try reading it backwards.
Posted by: Citizen X at November 18, 2014 10:40 AM (7ObY1)
Doc, Note: I Dissent. A Fast Never Prevents A Fatness. I Diet On Cod.
Posted by: MikeH at November 18, 2014 10:42 AM (DNTer)
Posted by: Bigby's Farm Hands at November 18, 2014 10:42 AM (3ZtZW)
52
@46 clap.... heh
Posted by: Yip at November 18, 2014 10:42 AM (84SRe)
53
The govt shutdown weapon only is off the table cause for Repubs because of the ProgMedia.
If situation was reversed, Pelosi and Reid would shutdown the govt and the ProgMedia would cheer the Dems.
If situation was reversed, Pelosi and Reid would shutdown the govt and the ProgMedia would cheer the Dems.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 10:43 AM (ZPrif)
54
Democrats would cut off funding and impeach a Republican version of Obama.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 10:41 AM (ZPrif)
BINGO
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 10:41 AM (ZPrif)
BINGO
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 10:43 AM (M0mf2)
Posted by: Citizen X at November 18, 2014 10:43 AM (7ObY1)
56
The GOP was elected to stop an unpopular President who has no respect for the constitution. If they won't do that, revolution becomes the only, and unavoidable, alternative.
Posted by: maddogg at November 18, 2014 10:43 AM (xWW96)
57
If you cross the road in the crosswalk, the law protects you.
If you jaywalk, it does not.
It's harder to win this, to defeat the Democrats and left-wing tyranny using the law, but it is the only way to do it without blowing their brains out.
Shortcuts do not work and just lead to ruin.
Gabe is being stupid and myopic, at best.
If you jaywalk, it does not.
It's harder to win this, to defeat the Democrats and left-wing tyranny using the law, but it is the only way to do it without blowing their brains out.
Shortcuts do not work and just lead to ruin.
Gabe is being stupid and myopic, at best.
Posted by: eman at November 18, 2014 10:43 AM (MQEz6)
58
" the failed shutdown strategy of 2013. Really tired of this argument."
A lot of things have happened between October 2013 and now. The shutdown got shoved off the front burners when ObamaCare "burst" on the scene. And then everything else from Ukraine to ISIS competed for attention. It is hard to say what effect you would get from another shutdown.
A lot of things have happened between October 2013 and now. The shutdown got shoved off the front burners when ObamaCare "burst" on the scene. And then everything else from Ukraine to ISIS competed for attention. It is hard to say what effect you would get from another shutdown.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - We Blanked Out at the Outrage Outlet! at November 18, 2014 10:43 AM (hLRSq)
59
Convention of the states, or bust. There's nothing left otherwise but the cartridge box, and I don't much care for that.
Posted by: A pot of message at November 18, 2014 10:43 AM (Ft3+l)
60
44 I wonder why Obama is not acting already on amnesty?
Posted by: Mikey NTH - We Blanked Out at the Outrage Outlet!
My guess is Thanksgiving, and President Stumblef&%k will say something about how the Pilgrims were interlopers and how the USA stole the Southwest, and we are the world, ad nauseam.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - We Blanked Out at the Outrage Outlet!
My guess is Thanksgiving, and President Stumblef&%k will say something about how the Pilgrims were interlopers and how the USA stole the Southwest, and we are the world, ad nauseam.
Posted by: Furious George at November 18, 2014 10:43 AM (UlJ3l)
61
Using the power we gained in the midterm in the senate and more importantly in the state governments, I would recommend the selective enforcement of voter rules and regulations.
Let drugs be sold in the schoolhouses, let nuns be raped in churches, don't waste resources responding to these calls. Instead, focus every hour of manpower to investigating, apprehending and prosecuting illegal voters.
If the actual crime only carries a few years punishment, pile on additional charges to lock away the criminals for life. Find people who faked voter registrations and toss them in a "pound your ass" prison.
Show Holder how selective enforcement works.
Let drugs be sold in the schoolhouses, let nuns be raped in churches, don't waste resources responding to these calls. Instead, focus every hour of manpower to investigating, apprehending and prosecuting illegal voters.
If the actual crime only carries a few years punishment, pile on additional charges to lock away the criminals for life. Find people who faked voter registrations and toss them in a "pound your ass" prison.
Show Holder how selective enforcement works.
Posted by: jwest at November 18, 2014 10:44 AM (vwlGK)
62
48 29 Posted by: Andy at November 18, 2014 10:39 AM (LxxIK)
If the only way we can assert our rights and historic liberty is to clap like trained seals while Boehner "sues" Obama in what is 97% most likely a futile gesture there is nothing worth fighting for anyway.
It's done, the die is most likely cast and the ONLY elections that matter from here on out are Presidential ones.
The US would have been lucky to be Brazil with nukes instead we're gonna be Venezuela with old nuke schematics.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:41 AM (/4AZU)
Just impeach him, doesn't mean he's thrown out office, that's a second hearing. Highlights he's a feckless drone of Soros. In fact, subpoena Soros for the impeachment hearings
If the only way we can assert our rights and historic liberty is to clap like trained seals while Boehner "sues" Obama in what is 97% most likely a futile gesture there is nothing worth fighting for anyway.
It's done, the die is most likely cast and the ONLY elections that matter from here on out are Presidential ones.
The US would have been lucky to be Brazil with nukes instead we're gonna be Venezuela with old nuke schematics.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:41 AM (/4AZU)
Just impeach him, doesn't mean he's thrown out office, that's a second hearing. Highlights he's a feckless drone of Soros. In fact, subpoena Soros for the impeachment hearings
Posted by: MikeH at November 18, 2014 10:44 AM (DNTer)
63
We've descended so far.
The immigrants coming here illegally, those that the Dems want to make into citizens, are low skilled and low education. "Ignorant" is probably harsh but true. And Liberalism cannot survive without the ignorant, including the willfully ignorant who graduate from Harvard Law School.
Incidentally, can someone tell me the point of impeachment? Clinton was impeached and nothing happened--he didn't resign, he didn't lose face, he didn't even pay a fine. Is "impeachment" the equivalent of saying, "Well, you're a meany-head and a stoop"?
The immigrants coming here illegally, those that the Dems want to make into citizens, are low skilled and low education. "Ignorant" is probably harsh but true. And Liberalism cannot survive without the ignorant, including the willfully ignorant who graduate from Harvard Law School.
Incidentally, can someone tell me the point of impeachment? Clinton was impeached and nothing happened--he didn't resign, he didn't lose face, he didn't even pay a fine. Is "impeachment" the equivalent of saying, "Well, you're a meany-head and a stoop"?
Posted by: Null at November 18, 2014 10:44 AM (P7hip)
64
54 Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 10:43 AM (M0mf2)
and what is MADDENING is fucking McCain gang would preen and try to get a pat on the head from the media rather than pointing out their fucking hypocrisy....
Why wefight fucking lose if filmed would have John fucking McCain's ugly ass smile on it.
and what is MADDENING is fucking McCain gang would preen and try to get a pat on the head from the media rather than pointing out their fucking hypocrisy....
Why we
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:44 AM (/4AZU)
65
4 Does extra-constitutional power grab come with a cape?
Posted by: Mr.KnowItAll at November 18, 2014 10:31 AM (uJK1E)
NO CAPES!!!!
Posted by: Mr.KnowItAll at November 18, 2014 10:31 AM (uJK1E)
NO CAPES!!!!
Posted by: Edna Mode at November 18, 2014 10:44 AM (DrWcr)
66
And for that matter, Gabe supports amnesty and has supported Obama's executive actions, for gays in the military and such, so quelle suprise at him saying let Obama slide again.
And for that matter, Gabe supports amnesty and has supported Obama's executive actions, for gays in the military and such, so quelle suprise at him saying let Obama slide again.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 18, 2014 10:45 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: rickb223 at November 18, 2014 10:45 AM (+nacu)
Posted by: Bandersnatch at November 18, 2014 10:45 AM (JtwS4)
69
Posted by: Iblis at November 18, 2014 10:39 AM
No. The Constitution is not broken. The people who currently "rule" our country are.
If put on a jury and confronted with a murderer, rapist or thief who had committed his crimes in plain sight, not a person here would hesitate to call for the punishment the law provides. Not one. Not even Poppin' Fresh.
For some reason, we go all helpless and cowardly when confronted by Choom Boy, whose criminal guilt is as apparent as, say, Luck Luciano's. I can't understand that.
No. The Constitution is not broken. The people who currently "rule" our country are.
If put on a jury and confronted with a murderer, rapist or thief who had committed his crimes in plain sight, not a person here would hesitate to call for the punishment the law provides. Not one. Not even Poppin' Fresh.
For some reason, we go all helpless and cowardly when confronted by Choom Boy, whose criminal guilt is as apparent as, say, Luck Luciano's. I can't understand that.
Posted by: MrScribbler at November 18, 2014 10:45 AM (PoKIA)
70
Amnesty will happen once the Ferguson riots are in full swing so there will already be a squirrel! in play.
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at November 18, 2014 10:45 AM (go6ud)
71
Handle it through appropriations...every program that Obama usurps through EO/Signing statements gets transferred directly onto the Whitehouse administration budget with no additional funds allocated for it. Border enforcement funds etc. previously allocated get block granted to the states instead for interdiction, incarceration, investigation and relocation to either DC or sanctuary cities. No new funds for DC or the Sanctuary cities. Same or similar response to any "Climate" programs.
Posted by: Birddog at November 18, 2014 10:46 AM (lBE3v)
Posted by: Johnathon Gruber at November 18, 2014 10:46 AM (zWC0k)
73
Gentlemen, all we need to really get things turned around is for the GOPe to hold a solid two-thirds majority in the House, 90 seats in the Senate, and the White House for two consecutive terms. Then we'll know the American people are serious about reform and we will clean house, seriously!
Until then, there isn't anything we can do except cave, stab Cruz in the back, and pass Continuing Resolutions!
Until then, there isn't anything we can do except cave, stab Cruz in the back, and pass Continuing Resolutions!
Posted by: Mitch McTurtle at November 18, 2014 10:46 AM (l1zOH)
74
Smug lying sock off.
Posted by: Brother Cavil at November 18, 2014 10:46 AM (zWC0k)
75
>>Incidentally, can someone tell me the point of impeachment?
The one benefit would be that it would bog Obama down with having to defend himself, derailing (or maybe just delaying) some of his planned activities. It's a giant distraction.
The one benefit would be that it would bog Obama down with having to defend himself, derailing (or maybe just delaying) some of his planned activities. It's a giant distraction.
Posted by: Lizzy at November 18, 2014 10:46 AM (ABcz/)
Posted by: Kreplach at November 18, 2014 10:46 AM (9J34u)
77
Torches, pitchforks, rope.
Posted by: Insomniac at November 18, 2014 10:47 AM (DrWcr)
78
62 Posted by: MikeH at November 18, 2014 10:44 AM (DNTer)
The "in fairness" wing of the GOP pisses its pants at the "optics" of impeaching Mocha Jesus....
the combination of Affirmative Action Indoctrination and Media Bias killed the Republic evidently....
rather than rising to the occasion to point out-
If Reagan couldn't bypass O'neill
If Bush the elder couldn't foley
If Bush the younger couldn't Nanzi Pelosi I'll be fucked if Obama gets to bypass Boehner is "just too hard"
The "in fairness" wing of the GOP pisses its pants at the "optics" of impeaching Mocha Jesus....
the combination of Affirmative Action Indoctrination and Media Bias killed the Republic evidently....
rather than rising to the occasion to point out-
If Reagan couldn't bypass O'neill
If Bush the elder couldn't foley
If Bush the younger couldn't Nanzi Pelosi I'll be fucked if Obama gets to bypass Boehner is "just too hard"
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:47 AM (/4AZU)
79
It is hard to say what effect you would get from another shutdown.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - We Blanked Out at the Outrage Outlet! at November 18, 2014 10:43 AM (hLRSq)
Well for one it would mean I would get a pass on this Fall's Physical Readiness Test which I am due to run after the shutdown date. Just saying
Posted by: Mikey NTH - We Blanked Out at the Outrage Outlet! at November 18, 2014 10:43 AM (hLRSq)
Well for one it would mean I would get a pass on this Fall's Physical Readiness Test which I am due to run after the shutdown date. Just saying
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 10:47 AM (M0mf2)
80
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
If you don't see how that applies here, I'm not sure I can help.
If you don't see how that applies here, I'm not sure I can help.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 10:47 AM (fwARV)
81
76 All things tend toward entropy.
Even great republics.
Posted by: Kreplach at November 18, 2014 10:46 AM (9J34u)
Hey, man, things are settling down, get away from me...
Even great republics.
Posted by: Kreplach at November 18, 2014 10:46 AM (9J34u)
Hey, man, things are settling down, get away from me...
Posted by: Entropy at November 18, 2014 10:48 AM (DNTer)
82
The way to fight Obama on the EPA overreach is to simply pass a law which states that neither Water vapor nor carbon dioxide are pollutants under the terms of the Clean Air Act. They are the number one and two greenhouse gases, respectively, but are not pollutants.
The Green House Effect is a good thing. It is the reason the mean surface temperature of all the Earth's surface is 288 K (including polar regions), whereas the mean equatorial surface temperature of the Moon is 220 K! Both are the same distance from the Sun and get comparable sunlight. The difference is due to the heat lost. In fact the Moon's albedo is lower than the Earth's meaning the surface absorbs more solar energy that the Earth. It loses so much more heat because it lacks a greenhouse effect!
Contrary to the SCOTUS decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, water vapor, not carbon dioxide is "the primary species of greenhouse gas".
Fight stupidity with TRUTH AND FACTS.
Once you've undercut the EPA's legal authority, you've undercut its regulatory overreach.
The Green House Effect is a good thing. It is the reason the mean surface temperature of all the Earth's surface is 288 K (including polar regions), whereas the mean equatorial surface temperature of the Moon is 220 K! Both are the same distance from the Sun and get comparable sunlight. The difference is due to the heat lost. In fact the Moon's albedo is lower than the Earth's meaning the surface absorbs more solar energy that the Earth. It loses so much more heat because it lacks a greenhouse effect!
Contrary to the SCOTUS decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, water vapor, not carbon dioxide is "the primary species of greenhouse gas".
Fight stupidity with TRUTH AND FACTS.
Once you've undercut the EPA's legal authority, you've undercut its regulatory overreach.
Posted by: MachiasPrivateer at November 18, 2014 10:48 AM (wFIA5)
83
So are you supportive of Congress using the power of the purse as the only remaining means to rein in this misbehavior?
A lawsuit would be farcical, if for no other reason than the length of time it would take. (unless, as I suggested on an earlier date, that SCOTUS would take it up immediately).
Obama's dismissal of legal hamstrings was visible during the 2009 Honduran crises, where the sitting president there decided to rewrite their constitution through referendum. Guess which side Obama was on? And the entire mess was "resolved" through backroom manipulation by the U.S., the OAS, and the UN. Look for more backroom de facto revisions to be made of our own legal system,
A lawsuit would be farcical, if for no other reason than the length of time it would take. (unless, as I suggested on an earlier date, that SCOTUS would take it up immediately).
Obama's dismissal of legal hamstrings was visible during the 2009 Honduran crises, where the sitting president there decided to rewrite their constitution through referendum. Guess which side Obama was on? And the entire mess was "resolved" through backroom manipulation by the U.S., the OAS, and the UN. Look for more backroom de facto revisions to be made of our own legal system,
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at November 18, 2014 10:48 AM (zpZLP)
84
66 Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 18, 2014 10:45 AM (kdS6q)
Gabe loves the Ogabe doctrine b/c of DOMA....
Gabe loves the Ogabe doctrine b/c of DOMA....
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:48 AM (/4AZU)
85
Once you've undercut the EPA's legal authority, you've undercut its regulatory overreach.
Posted by: MachiasPrivateer at November 18, 2014 10:48 AM (wFIA5)
Defunding them would be nice.
Posted by: MachiasPrivateer at November 18, 2014 10:48 AM (wFIA5)
Defunding them would be nice.
Posted by: Insomniac at November 18, 2014 10:48 AM (DrWcr)
86
My guess is Thanksgiving, and President Stumblef%k will say something about how the Pilgrims were interlopers and how the USA stole the Southwest, and we are the world, ad nauseam.
Posted by: Furious George
Probably, but -- Christmas would be even better. "No room at the inn, kindness toward strangers. Kid named Jesus...." Sells itself.
Probably get a second Nobel and a Peabody for the speech.
My guess is Thanksgiving, and President Stumblef%k will say something about how the Pilgrims were interlopers and how the USA stole the Southwest, and we are the world, ad nauseam.
Posted by: Furious George
Probably, but -- Christmas would be even better. "No room at the inn, kindness toward strangers. Kid named Jesus...." Sells itself.
Probably get a second Nobel and a Peabody for the speech.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 18, 2014 10:48 AM (kdS6q)
87
Gut everything Obama has done through lawless action through similar means, but don't extend to new areas. Erase this whole sorry era from existence, and leave it as a sad footnote in history.
Posted by: Grimaldi at November 18, 2014 10:48 AM (wY8RN)
88
Lucky Luciano's.
And that was a bad example. He was tried and convicted on rather dubious grounds.
More like John Gotti's last trial.
And that was a bad example. He was tried and convicted on rather dubious grounds.
More like John Gotti's last trial.
Posted by: MrScribbler at November 18, 2014 10:48 AM (PoKIA)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 18, 2014 10:49 AM (1nB6R)
90
I'm afraid some conservatives may be trying to preserve a society that no longer exists.
Is it seriously being argued that while it's a tragedy that Obama is using a given tactic in a way that utterly runs contrary to the spirit and quite possibly the letter of the law, that what would REALLY sink the country is if a Republican did the same thing?
Is it seriously being argued that if a Republican does something, that's letting the genie out of the bottle and it can never be undone again... but if a Democrat does it, this is somehow an act that can be reversed?
There's two real choices: stop Obama now, penalize his abuse of executive power now... or accept that it's now the way things are done in this country after all. And if it's the latter, then we'll have to act accordingly in the future, should the opportunity present itself.
Is it seriously being argued that while it's a tragedy that Obama is using a given tactic in a way that utterly runs contrary to the spirit and quite possibly the letter of the law, that what would REALLY sink the country is if a Republican did the same thing?
Is it seriously being argued that if a Republican does something, that's letting the genie out of the bottle and it can never be undone again... but if a Democrat does it, this is somehow an act that can be reversed?
There's two real choices: stop Obama now, penalize his abuse of executive power now... or accept that it's now the way things are done in this country after all. And if it's the latter, then we'll have to act accordingly in the future, should the opportunity present itself.
Posted by: Crude at November 18, 2014 10:49 AM (DUynq)
91
some of his planned activities
Only if its in the summer. Most golf courses are closed through the winter.
Only if its in the summer. Most golf courses are closed through the winter.
Posted by: buzzion at November 18, 2014 10:50 AM (zt+N6)
92
Posted by: Birddog at November 18, 2014 10:46 AM (lBE3v)
Tampering with the budget that so many voters count on is bad optics, so Continuing Resolutions is the only way to deal with financing government programs, and I think the Founding Fathers would agree that the Free Shit and Pork must flow!
Tampering with the budget that so many voters count on is bad optics, so Continuing Resolutions is the only way to deal with financing government programs, and I think the Founding Fathers would agree that the Free Shit and Pork must flow!
Posted by: Mitch McTurtle at November 18, 2014 10:50 AM (l1zOH)
93
>>>Gabe is being stupid and myopic, at best.
I'm not so sure. Maybe it depends on your starting point.
I'm fairly certain [like changing voting patterns based on it] after the 2012 re-election of this obvious catastrophe that the demographics, if not ideology, of the country has changed. We're in new territory.
GOP can count on the white male vote [some or most of it] but nothing much else. As a national plank the GOP is increasingly a dead letter. Sure, mid-terms and State levels are very much viable, but national is no longer reachable.
If so, then the branch of governement we are able to weigh in with must be ballsy enough to accomplish needed reforms.
Which leads us to the second major problem...
I'm not so sure. Maybe it depends on your starting point.
I'm fairly certain [like changing voting patterns based on it] after the 2012 re-election of this obvious catastrophe that the demographics, if not ideology, of the country has changed. We're in new territory.
GOP can count on the white male vote [some or most of it] but nothing much else. As a national plank the GOP is increasingly a dead letter. Sure, mid-terms and State levels are very much viable, but national is no longer reachable.
If so, then the branch of governement we are able to weigh in with must be ballsy enough to accomplish needed reforms.
Which leads us to the second major problem...
Posted by: Bigby's Farm Hands at November 18, 2014 10:50 AM (3ZtZW)
94
It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence, to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: "And this, too, shall pass away." How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! -- how consoling in the depths of affliction! "And this, too, shall pass away." And yet let us hope it is not quite true. Let us hope, rather, that by the best cultivation of the physical world, beneath and around us; and the intellectual and moral world within us, we shall secure an individual, social, and political prosperity and happiness, whose course shall be onward and upward, and which, while the earth endures, shall not pass away. - A. Lincoln September 30, 1859
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 10:51 AM (evdj2)
95
Heres the hard truth that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner need to understand.
If they do not fight Obama using the budget now, they will see more tyranny from Obama and, if we get to have an honest election in 2016, enormous pressure on the GOP president to do likewise.
McConnell and Boehner. Who knew that such a weak-assed pair would hold the fate of the Republic in their golf-callused hands...
If they do not fight Obama using the budget now, they will see more tyranny from Obama and, if we get to have an honest election in 2016, enormous pressure on the GOP president to do likewise.
McConnell and Boehner. Who knew that such a weak-assed pair would hold the fate of the Republic in their golf-callused hands...
Posted by: MTF at November 18, 2014 10:51 AM (6um35)
96
90 Posted by: Crude at November 18, 2014 10:49 AM (DUynq)
Correct, either impeach his ass and demagogue Donks who put party before system or accept Ogabe Doctrine and attack his rent seekers when we get power back using Obama's "by whatever means are necessary" approach....
they want to play "might makes right" game the fuck on
Correct, either impeach his ass and demagogue Donks who put party before system or accept Ogabe Doctrine and attack his rent seekers when we get power back using Obama's "by whatever means are necessary" approach....
they want to play "might makes right" game the fuck on
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:51 AM (/4AZU)
97
In this way the GOP can take the high road, complain about the action,
express outrage at the precedent, but allow Obama and the Dems to own
it.
The Democrats have NEVER, and I mean NEVER taken responsibility for any of their failures. EVER. They accept only praise, never blame.
express outrage at the precedent, but allow Obama and the Dems to own
it.
The Democrats have NEVER, and I mean NEVER taken responsibility for any of their failures. EVER. They accept only praise, never blame.
Posted by: Null at November 18, 2014 10:51 AM (P7hip)
98
I saw "Very Dark Places" open for Bauhaus in the 80s. Or was it the 90s?
Posted by: Retard Strength Trumps Smart Power at November 18, 2014 10:51 AM (27KAF)
99
I'm still trying to figure this one out, Gabe notes the "failed shutdown strategy of 2013". How was this a failure again? I mean sure, there was one push-poll saying that the GOP was being destroyed (while every other poll showed a combination of support and 'what shutdown?'), but a far more meaningful poll conducted a couple weeks ago gave the GOP a landslide victory. So why is Gabe determined to promote this lie? Oh right, it's Gabe.
Posted by: mugiwara at November 18, 2014 10:52 AM (06U11)
100
I envy those who still play in the garden of fair games and the rule of law.
You're arguing over whether to let it happen.
It's happened. It's over. You can't fix a broken promise of this magnitude.
Even if the republicans did stand for what they say they stand for in terms of playing by the rules as written (Protip: they don't. Viz. Wolf, Brat, McDaniel et al.), the other side don't care about rules, and neither do their voters. We can't play Marquis of Queensbury to their Maquis de Sade and expect to be able to get things back to the way they were.
It's over. Pack it in. Preferably using the Swiss pike square formation.
You're arguing over whether to let it happen.
It's happened. It's over. You can't fix a broken promise of this magnitude.
Even if the republicans did stand for what they say they stand for in terms of playing by the rules as written (Protip: they don't. Viz. Wolf, Brat, McDaniel et al.), the other side don't care about rules, and neither do their voters. We can't play Marquis of Queensbury to their Maquis de Sade and expect to be able to get things back to the way they were.
It's over. Pack it in. Preferably using the Swiss pike square formation.
Posted by: Truman North, Moron Emeritus at November 18, 2014 10:52 AM (E6ZSu)
101
Regarding Constitutions.
They are really great documents. They provide a Rosetta stone for the ground rules of how governments agree to operate.
The Achilles Heel on Constitutions is that the involved have to agree to abide by the rules. I would argue the Progressive Left (BIRM)... dont WANT to abide by the constitution and are willing to do and say just about anything that furthers their pursuit of utopia on earth.... or feathers their little nest power.
There are those that will argue ..... with a straight face... that free healthcare, abortion on demand, gay marriage, a college education, and a living wage are all rights enshrined in the Constitution.
But.... the right to criticize your President, to Practice your Religion as you see fit, to own firearms, to have some privacy from the government, and States rights are no where to be found in the same Constitution.
The current occupant of the White House describes the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties".
Our Constituion is already dead. The larger question is "Now What??"
Regarding Constitutions.
They are really great documents. They provide a Rosetta stone for the ground rules of how governments agree to operate.
The Achilles Heel on Constitutions is that the involved have to agree to abide by the rules. I would argue the Progressive Left (BIRM)... dont WANT to abide by the constitution and are willing to do and say just about anything that furthers their pursuit of utopia on earth.... or feathers their little nest power.
There are those that will argue ..... with a straight face... that free healthcare, abortion on demand, gay marriage, a college education, and a living wage are all rights enshrined in the Constitution.
But.... the right to criticize your President, to Practice your Religion as you see fit, to own firearms, to have some privacy from the government, and States rights are no where to be found in the same Constitution.
The current occupant of the White House describes the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties".
Our Constituion is already dead. The larger question is "Now What??"
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 10:52 AM (NaV4z)
102
Do it this way. Use every tool in the toolbox. Problem is, 'republicans' don't have a toolbox. They hocked it a long time ago for some of that sweet gummint cash.
Posted by: Erowmero at November 18, 2014 10:53 AM (go5uR)
103
Well for one it would mean I would get a pass on this Fall's Physical Readiness Test which I am due to run after the shutdown date. Just saying
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 10:47 AM (M0mf2)
And you would probably spend that grace period drinking beer instead of working out. That's it - no shutdowns! It's for your own good.
Heh.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 10:47 AM (M0mf2)
And you would probably spend that grace period drinking beer instead of working out. That's it - no shutdowns! It's for your own good.
Heh.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - We Blanked Out at the Outrage Outlet! at November 18, 2014 10:53 AM (hLRSq)
104
The bounty on tea party icon Darren Wilson just increased. That peckerwood cracker has it coming.
Posted by: Streets is watching at November 18, 2014 10:53 AM (J+FUk)
105
As I have said a number of times... but it bears repeating....
The only thing saving them, from us, is respect for the rule of law....
The very rule of law they are destroying.
US society is already breaking down. People are telling more lies... stealing more... being polite less... its is splintering along ethnic lines... and the weak are using shame to bully the strong.
When the chief law enforcement officer of the US, no longer follows the Law, even when we have Video of Him saying he does not have that power...
We are so far down the rabbit hole, that the only way back, is if WE, the People, take a hand.
We tried mass protests, with the TEA party a couple of years ago.... and were ignored... so they stopped...
We tried polls... but they do not listen...
We tried elections... but the system is STILL broken...
The question becomes, do we have the raw courage our forefathers had?
The only thing saving them, from us, is respect for the rule of law....
The very rule of law they are destroying.
US society is already breaking down. People are telling more lies... stealing more... being polite less... its is splintering along ethnic lines... and the weak are using shame to bully the strong.
When the chief law enforcement officer of the US, no longer follows the Law, even when we have Video of Him saying he does not have that power...
We are so far down the rabbit hole, that the only way back, is if WE, the People, take a hand.
We tried mass protests, with the TEA party a couple of years ago.... and were ignored... so they stopped...
We tried polls... but they do not listen...
We tried elections... but the system is STILL broken...
The question becomes, do we have the raw courage our forefathers had?
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 10:53 AM (f0pWu)
106
America the Pussy
Let's just go full wuss and have our troops put Canadian flags on their backpacks.
Free Beacon @FreeBeacon
US orders its Europe troops to keep low profile http://goo.gl/PzYltP
Let's just go full wuss and have our troops put Canadian flags on their backpacks.
Free Beacon @FreeBeacon
US orders its Europe troops to keep low profile http://goo.gl/PzYltP
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 10:53 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 18, 2014 10:53 AM (0LHZx)
108
Our Constituion is already dead. The larger question is "Now What??"
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 10:52 AM (NaV4z)
Toga Party?
TOGA, TOGA, TOGA
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 10:52 AM (NaV4z)
Toga Party?
TOGA, TOGA, TOGA
Posted by: MikeH at November 18, 2014 10:53 AM (DNTer)
109
I'm just noting that the words "let it burn" didn't appear with a CTRL-F.
Okay, now to go read the article and comments.
I'm just noting that the words "let it burn" didn't appear with a CTRL-F.
Okay, now to go read the article and comments.
Posted by: LibertarianJim at November 18, 2014 10:53 AM (XMDuf)
110
101 Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 10:52 AM (NaV4z)
National Divorce.
Put like animals with like animals or suffer when they play dominance games.
National Divorce.
Put like animals with like animals or suffer when they play dominance games.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:54 AM (/4AZU)
111
It's not a question of whether to play fair. It's a question of play fair, or win.
Posted by: Truman North, Moron Emeritus at November 18, 2014 10:54 AM (E6ZSu)
112
107 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 18, 2014 10:53 AM (0LHZx)
Not without reciprocal cheating, and a LOT of broken jaws...
Not without reciprocal cheating, and a LOT of broken jaws...
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:55 AM (/4AZU)
113
This includes the argument that the Senate R's will let the current Dem rules stay in place; allowing THEM to over-ride Dems without letting them into the discussion.
What's good for them, is good for us, right?
What's good for them, is good for us, right?
Posted by: Mr Wolf at November 18, 2014 10:55 AM (x3W3X)
114
>>>Of course we all know a Republican President won't do that because it would be politically unpopular with Latino voters. And no doubt one argument against such an action would be that it would be unfair to to do this to people who came to depend on the word of the government to organize their lives.
.
.
.Just like the promise I got in writing in 1974 if I made the Military a Career I would get free Medical Care for life? That promise?
.
.
.Just like the promise I got in writing in 1974 if I made the Military a Career I would get free Medical Care for life? That promise?
Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at November 18, 2014 10:56 AM (MZGhy)
115
Stall for 2 years, elect Haley or Walker, crush them legally.
Posted by: DaveA at November 18, 2014 10:56 AM (DL2i+)
116
Tengo un idea.
Posted by: Augusto Pinochet at November 18, 2014 10:57 AM (DrWcr)
117
Our Constituion is already dead. The larger question is "Now What??"
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 10:52 AM (NaV4z)
When the Federal Government became the only and final arbiter of what is Constitutional, or Legal... and with the 'respect' the Courts give prior decisions...
It was inevitable that the Federal Government would slowly accrue power unto itself... until it was no longer even really pretending to be Constitutional.
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 10:52 AM (NaV4z)
When the Federal Government became the only and final arbiter of what is Constitutional, or Legal... and with the 'respect' the Courts give prior decisions...
It was inevitable that the Federal Government would slowly accrue power unto itself... until it was no longer even really pretending to be Constitutional.
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 10:57 AM (f0pWu)
118
A significant number of Republicans (if not a majority) in Congress are in favor of amnesty but they do not want to vote for it. Why would they push to override an executive amnesty unless it were to provide them with a major political benefit? Would it?
The Republican issue is likely with their constituents, not with Obama on amnesty.
The Republican issue is likely with their constituents, not with Obama on amnesty.
Posted by: RioBravo at November 18, 2014 10:57 AM (SaMXZ)
119
Our Constitution is a lot like a relationship in one significant regard: It stops working the instant one party doesn't WANT it to work.
A relationship can weather ANY storm if both parties want to weather it. When one person wants out, though, it's over.
So it is with our Constitution. The left wants out. We don't. There's no way for the issue to be decided easily or quickly.
I just hope it can be decided peacefully.
A relationship can weather ANY storm if both parties want to weather it. When one person wants out, though, it's over.
So it is with our Constitution. The left wants out. We don't. There's no way for the issue to be decided easily or quickly.
I just hope it can be decided peacefully.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 10:57 AM (fwARV)
120
Would it be acceptable if a new president declared all same sex marriages to be null and void?
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at November 18, 2014 10:57 AM (W5DcG)
121
Look at Jonathan Turley going to bat for the republicans. Look at Carl Levin quoted in NRO on reining in Obama. Look at Steve Rattner throwing Obama under the bus on Gruber. There is a chance a couple of things are all coming to a head. Obama rode the fuck over anyone in his party that may have tarnished his halo. He gave out no money to the senators. in short he sucks as a politician not because he is above it. Rather it is beneath him and it is all about the HIM. Second he is stepping on the dicks of republicans and democrats when he usurps. third he fails. turley joining in strikes this distant observer as an honest lib just fed the fuck up with it all. Point being Obama may have created the special sauce that results in a semi-bipartisan undoing. that is Hope and fecking change we can believe in.
Posted by: Mac at November 18, 2014 10:57 AM (0J18b)
122
Democrats must be shown the error of their ways.
Yelling at a dog for eating the garbage has NEVER worked.
Yelling at a dog for eating the garbage has NEVER worked.
Posted by: DaveA at November 18, 2014 10:58 AM (DL2i+)
123
113 Posted by: Mr Wolf at November 18, 2014 10:55 AM (x3W3X)
BWAHAHAHA!
Fuck...thanks no really I needed the laugh.
Look why not take a page out of Reid and Ogabe's book and "interpret" the Constitution to say a simple majority in the Senate convicts?
Because "our" side is in on the gag....
they are the Washington Generals to Donkey's Harlem Globe Trotters...
the GOP does not give a fuck about the sanctity of the system, just that we get fucked hard enough to keep the 11 trillion dollar a year gravy train rolling.
BWAHAHAHA!
Fuck...thanks no really I needed the laugh.
Look why not take a page out of Reid and Ogabe's book and "interpret" the Constitution to say a simple majority in the Senate convicts?
Because "our" side is in on the gag....
they are the Washington Generals to Donkey's Harlem Globe Trotters...
the GOP does not give a fuck about the sanctity of the system, just that we get fucked hard enough to keep the 11 trillion dollar a year gravy train rolling.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 10:58 AM (/4AZU)
124
I have to go with DrewM on this. Use the power of the purse, shut it down and then proceed with impeachment proceedings.
Then in 2017 when we have a republican president takes over set the AG on every last one of these lawbreakers and put them in jail, including barky.
Then in 2017 when we have a republican president takes over set the AG on every last one of these lawbreakers and put them in jail, including barky.
Posted by: Dandolo at November 18, 2014 10:58 AM (0XBx+)
125
Charles Cooke argues that embracing Obama's view of unlimited executive power will lead to some very dark places we don't want to go.
----
I would argue that once EITHER party goes down that path, there is no turning around.
----
I would argue that once EITHER party goes down that path, there is no turning around.
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 10:58 AM (NaV4z)
126
IIRC, the first few emperors after Ceaser, life was good in the Republic.
Why should I care? The future is well and truly fucked.
There will be war, there will be collapse--the debt ensures that.
Better on our terms than theirs.
Which is to say, better a bloody fight now while we can still fight back than a soulless, methodical grinding under as the leftists are proceeding.
Why should I care? The future is well and truly fucked.
There will be war, there will be collapse--the debt ensures that.
Better on our terms than theirs.
Which is to say, better a bloody fight now while we can still fight back than a soulless, methodical grinding under as the leftists are proceeding.
Posted by: RoyalOil at November 18, 2014 10:58 AM (VjL9S)
127
If the Repulicans can't enforce the Constitution and reign in Obama's abuse of power, and can't use the Democrat playbook of dirty tricks, then the only other peaceful option is a convention of the states to write or rewrite the laws governing the actions of the Federal government.
Posted by: fairweatherbill at November 18, 2014 10:58 AM (g54wf)
128
I have to go with DrewM on this. Use the power of the purse, shut it down...
----
Override a veto? Possible?
----
Override a veto? Possible?
Posted by: RioBravo at November 18, 2014 10:59 AM (SaMXZ)
129
I would argue that once EITHER party goes down that path, there is no turning around.
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 10:58 AM (NaV4z)
I guess that's the split here. Those who think we're already down that path and those who think we can still be turned.
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 10:58 AM (NaV4z)
I guess that's the split here. Those who think we're already down that path and those who think we can still be turned.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 10:59 AM (fwARV)
130
No. The Constitution is not broken. The people who currently "rule" our country are.
If put on a jury and confronted with a murderer, rapist or thief who had committed his crimes in plain sight, not a person here would hesitate to call for the punishment the law provides. Not one. Not even Poppin' Fresh.
For some reason, we go all helpless and cowardly when confronted by Choom Boy, whose criminal guilt is as apparent as, say, Luck Luciano's. I can't understand that.
Posted by: MrScribbler at November 18, 2014 10:45 AM (PoKIA)
No. The Constitution is a piece of paper, that only has meaning as long as people are willing to live by its strictures. Too many in our society, especially those with power/cultural capital, have decided they don't want to live by it. Those purporting to be on our side refuse to force our enemies to abide by it, thus accelerating its declining relevance. So either we force the libs to adhere to it, we scrap it with our own bastard, or we kill the fuckers. I want option A. But I'll take option B and hope to avoid option C.
If put on a jury and confronted with a murderer, rapist or thief who had committed his crimes in plain sight, not a person here would hesitate to call for the punishment the law provides. Not one. Not even Poppin' Fresh.
For some reason, we go all helpless and cowardly when confronted by Choom Boy, whose criminal guilt is as apparent as, say, Luck Luciano's. I can't understand that.
Posted by: MrScribbler at November 18, 2014 10:45 AM (PoKIA)
No. The Constitution is a piece of paper, that only has meaning as long as people are willing to live by its strictures. Too many in our society, especially those with power/cultural capital, have decided they don't want to live by it. Those purporting to be on our side refuse to force our enemies to abide by it, thus accelerating its declining relevance. So either we force the libs to adhere to it, we scrap it with our own bastard, or we kill the fuckers. I want option A. But I'll take option B and hope to avoid option C.
Posted by: Iblis at November 18, 2014 11:00 AM (U0ndG)
131
So we're setting up a system where Liberals rule by lawless decree and Republicans will rule by law and try to claw back the liberty and treasure lost during Democrat administrations?
So we're settling in for a long slow burn.
So we're settling in for a long slow burn.
Posted by: BuckIV at November 18, 2014 11:00 AM (CLfqv)
132
The Democrats have NEVER, and I mean NEVER taken responsibility for any
of their failures. EVER. They accept only praise, never blame.
This.
Also, fuck the GOP. They are worthless.
of their failures. EVER. They accept only praise, never blame.
This.
Also, fuck the GOP. They are worthless.
Posted by: Thin veneer of civility at November 18, 2014 11:01 AM (XzRw1)
133
So we're setting up a system where Liberals rule by lawless decree without consequence and Republicans will rule by law and try to claw back the liberty and treasure lost during Democrat administrations? So we're settling in for a long slow burn.
Posted by: BuckIV at November 18, 2014 11:00 AM (CLfqv)
Fixed.
Posted by: BuckIV at November 18, 2014 11:00 AM (CLfqv)
Fixed.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 11:01 AM (fwARV)
134
Override a veto? Possible?
We don't need to override a veto to use the power of the purse.
Pass funding bills we want, and not anything we don't. Pass spending bills piece-meal. Fund those agencies we want funded, don't fund (or attach strings to the funding of) agencies we don't.
When the Parks Service gets shut down, point out we passed a bill funding the Parks Service, and that TFG shut it down.
We don't need to override a veto to use the power of the purse.
Pass funding bills we want, and not anything we don't. Pass spending bills piece-meal. Fund those agencies we want funded, don't fund (or attach strings to the funding of) agencies we don't.
When the Parks Service gets shut down, point out we passed a bill funding the Parks Service, and that TFG shut it down.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) with a new job at November 18, 2014 11:02 AM (kff5f)
135
When one side follows the Constitution and another side doesn't then we're already in a post-constitutional era!
When one side follows the Constitution and another side doesn't then we're already in a post-constitutional era!
Posted by: Arthur at November 18, 2014 11:03 AM (h53OH)
136
Why is it that we still trust the republicans? The vast majority are 99% of democrats. They all suck.
There are two choices, and it's not play far or not play fair.
The two choices are, be on the inside, lose your soul and keep your life, or be on the outside, keep your soul and lose your shirt.
There are two choices, and it's not play far or not play fair.
The two choices are, be on the inside, lose your soul and keep your life, or be on the outside, keep your soul and lose your shirt.
Posted by: Truman North, Moron Emeritus at November 18, 2014 11:03 AM (E6ZSu)
137
The answer is to build up alternative conservative media -- so when Repubs cut funding the ProgMedia can't destroy them.
The weaker ProgMedia is, the better for us.
The weaker ProgMedia is, the better for us.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:03 AM (ZPrif)
138
Repubs are too big of a puss to fight fire with fire. They are the party of stupid, after all.
Posted by: Titanium at November 18, 2014 11:03 AM (j/0FK)
139
126 Posted by: RoyalOil at November 18, 2014 10:58 AM (VjL9S)
Life was good for 95% of Romans under Augustus...unless you or a family member pissed him off.
Life was good for ~ 80% of Romans under Tiberius with the decline inversely proportional from the 95% to Tiberius' growing addiction to using Sejanus and Macro as his Gestapo...
Life was good for 60% of Romans under Caligula as he drained the treasury in under two years and used his PG more than Tiberius....
Life was good for 75% of Romans under Claudius....
he could never get it back to 95% because "catch me fuck me" had become the Roman national sport....
Augustus was so restrained because he grasped he was teaching the Romans to not want the power of self-determination.
Clinton---->Ogabe
Life was good for 95% of Romans under Augustus...unless you or a family member pissed him off.
Life was good for ~ 80% of Romans under Tiberius with the decline inversely proportional from the 95% to Tiberius' growing addiction to using Sejanus and Macro as his Gestapo...
Life was good for 60% of Romans under Caligula as he drained the treasury in under two years and used his PG more than Tiberius....
Life was good for 75% of Romans under Claudius....
he could never get it back to 95% because "catch me fuck me" had become the Roman national sport....
Augustus was so restrained because he grasped he was teaching the Romans to not want the power of self-determination.
Clinton---->Ogabe
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:03 AM (/4AZU)
140
125 Charles Cooke argues that embracing Obama's view of unlimited executive power will lead to some very dark places we don't want to go.
----
I would argue that once EITHER party goes down that path, there is no turning around.
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 10:58 AM (NaV4z)
the real issue is that Presidents have already gone down that path.
NSA spying on all US Citizens? Secret Warrants? No knock Raids? Assassination by drone in Neutral countries? Military incursions in neutral countries? Asset Forfeiture Laws?
Its just that these really blatant things, which were against the spirit of the Constitution, were small...
This will affect us all.
----
I would argue that once EITHER party goes down that path, there is no turning around.
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 10:58 AM (NaV4z)
the real issue is that Presidents have already gone down that path.
NSA spying on all US Citizens? Secret Warrants? No knock Raids? Assassination by drone in Neutral countries? Military incursions in neutral countries? Asset Forfeiture Laws?
Its just that these really blatant things, which were against the spirit of the Constitution, were small...
This will affect us all.
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 11:03 AM (f0pWu)
141
We're already past the red line. It's time to go Vic Mackey on the democrats.
Posted by: EC at November 18, 2014 11:04 AM (GQ8sn)
142
Hector has come out to play. Must be a slow day at the glory hole.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at November 18, 2014 11:04 AM (7MWCL)
143
I guess that's the split here. Those who think we're already down that path and those who think we can still be turned.
Adding more entropy never fixed anything. I don't necessarily think we can turn things around (though I'm not sure it's hopeless, either), but even if not, maybe we should be doing our best to give ourselves time to find a better solution that dissolution and anarchy.
Adding more entropy never fixed anything. I don't necessarily think we can turn things around (though I'm not sure it's hopeless, either), but even if not, maybe we should be doing our best to give ourselves time to find a better solution that dissolution and anarchy.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) with a new job at November 18, 2014 11:04 AM (kff5f)
144
I think a lot of posters are advocating for positions that assume the voters are paying attention to the details. Ace has advocated in the past and I agree, that the GOP has to talk the game and then do what is right. I am hoping that is what the GOP is doing now. If they are it will require that they continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths after they implement the right policies. For instance, the Keystone pipeline legislation should have been called the The Energy Indepenence and Increased Employment Bill.
Posted by: Bob Belcher at November 18, 2014 11:04 AM (yshTX)
145
Democracies usually collapse into Strong Man politics.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:05 AM (ZPrif)
146
137 The answer is to build up alternative conservative media -- so when Repubs cut funding the ProgMedia can't destroy them.
The weaker ProgMedia is, the better for us.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:03 AM (ZPrif)
Go a-la-carte cable and MSNBC disappears. Its already happening. Dish dropped CNN & HLN and replaced it with The Blaze. (for now)
The weaker ProgMedia is, the better for us.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:03 AM (ZPrif)
Go a-la-carte cable and MSNBC disappears. Its already happening. Dish dropped CNN & HLN and replaced it with The Blaze. (for now)
Posted by: Iblis at November 18, 2014 11:05 AM (U0ndG)
147
135
When one side follows the Constitution and another side doesn't then we're already in a post-constitutional era!
Posted by: Arthur at November 18, 2014 11:03 AM (h53OH)
Yes. This. Thanks.
When one side follows the Constitution and another side doesn't then we're already in a post-constitutional era!
Posted by: Arthur at November 18, 2014 11:03 AM (h53OH)
Yes. This. Thanks.
Posted by: Truman North, Moron Emeritus at November 18, 2014 11:05 AM (E6ZSu)
148
Adding more entropy never fixed anything.
-
Pinochet disagrees.
So does every war of liberation.
-
Pinochet disagrees.
So does every war of liberation.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:06 AM (ZPrif)
149
Democrats must be shown the error of their ways.
Yelling at a dog for eating the garbage has NEVER worked.
Beating the fuck out of him DOES.
Yelling at a dog for eating the garbage has NEVER worked.
Beating the fuck out of him DOES.
Posted by: rickb223 at November 18, 2014 11:06 AM (w0a3q)
150
Not electing Republicans is what got us here, I don't remember GOP President Bush issuing a bunch of illegal Executive Orders.
Seems to me the best way to stop this lawlessness is make sure Dems don't win at the ballot box.
The idea that "Republicans are no better" is how Democrats get elected and pull this shit.
Seems to me the best way to stop this lawlessness is make sure Dems don't win at the ballot box.
The idea that "Republicans are no better" is how Democrats get elected and pull this shit.
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:06 AM (Aow3m)
151
Defund. The Republican House is the wallet and the Republican Senate takes away the car keys. When dealing with a crazed juvenile you don't argue, beg, or lecture. You cut them off at the knees by withholding what they want most namely the money and the car keys. Do it to Obama the child. Expect a fit. Ignore it. Someone (some party) has to be the adult. No one promised that Obama's idiocy would be funded and that needs to be rubbed into his face.
Posted by: Lester at November 18, 2014 11:06 AM (2UPXV)
152
Also, as was said in the previous post:
"If the rule of law is dead, then only will applies
and we might as well get on with the killing because that's how a
confrontation of wills is always resolved."
Well, all law is--at the end of the day--a force of will.
The law is nothing if it can never be escalated to the taking of a man's life or his property.
Where I saw this I don't recall but, when the sweet mother stands up at the city council and says, "There ought to be a law!" she means that her will ought to be imposed upon everyone. That, if her will is not followed, others must lose either their liberty, their life or their property.
The GOP, by conceding there is no remedy to the lawlessness of Obaaama, are just as guilty of killing the rule of law.
There are remedies other than impeachment--a king cannot rule if he has no one to enforce his will.
All the GOP has to say is, "Any one who dares enforce Executive Order X will be held in contempt of Congress and WILL be thrown in jail. Every department head, every agent, everyone right down to the secretary or the guy hired last week is on notice: You will enforce the law as it is written and you WILL NOT interpret it as Obama suggests."
Not this nancy-boy, pussy shit they've been doing of talk, talk and more fucking talk.
"If the rule of law is dead, then only will applies
and we might as well get on with the killing because that's how a
confrontation of wills is always resolved."
Well, all law is--at the end of the day--a force of will.
The law is nothing if it can never be escalated to the taking of a man's life or his property.
Where I saw this I don't recall but, when the sweet mother stands up at the city council and says, "There ought to be a law!" she means that her will ought to be imposed upon everyone. That, if her will is not followed, others must lose either their liberty, their life or their property.
The GOP, by conceding there is no remedy to the lawlessness of Obaaama, are just as guilty of killing the rule of law.
There are remedies other than impeachment--a king cannot rule if he has no one to enforce his will.
All the GOP has to say is, "Any one who dares enforce Executive Order X will be held in contempt of Congress and WILL be thrown in jail. Every department head, every agent, everyone right down to the secretary or the guy hired last week is on notice: You will enforce the law as it is written and you WILL NOT interpret it as Obama suggests."
Not this nancy-boy, pussy shit they've been doing of talk, talk and more fucking talk.
Posted by: RoyalOil at November 18, 2014 11:07 AM (VjL9S)
153
The only issue I have with the ala carte approach to cable is that its main advocate is John Sidney McCain.
Blind squirrel...nut
Blind squirrel....nut
Blind squirrel...nut
Blind squirrel....nut
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President of the Sheena Easton Fan Club at November 18, 2014 11:07 AM (OWjjx)
154
The only thing saving them, from us, is respect for the rule of law.... The very rule of law they are destroying.
================
But we, the law-abiding, will never go after them. We will instead be hunted once the law finally falls.
================
But we, the law-abiding, will never go after them. We will instead be hunted once the law finally falls.
Posted by: Bigby's Farm Hands at November 18, 2014 11:07 AM (3ZtZW)
155
It's not just about weakening ProgMedia, though -- it's about building up center-right media as a counter-weight.
The Left has an extraordinarily powerful echo chamber. Ours is much weaker.
The Left has an extraordinarily powerful echo chamber. Ours is much weaker.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:07 AM (ZPrif)
156
The trouble of showing the Dems the error of their ways is that by the time it gets done, every Dem responsible for this mess will be out of government. The new generation will just say, Hey...it wasn't us.
Better I think to follow the law. Its the only common structure by which to apply the lesson now as well as in the future.
Better I think to follow the law. Its the only common structure by which to apply the lesson now as well as in the future.
Posted by: Diogenes at November 18, 2014 11:08 AM (08Znv)
157
"It's hard to see how the solution to lawlessness is more lawlessness."
Exactly right. The time has come for impeachment, per Andrew C. McCarthy: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392726/point-impeachment-andrew-c-mccarthy
Gabe's plan would reduce this country to ashes. It would amount to the final step in Obama's play, to undermine the entire Constitutional system with one final blow, delivered not by him but by the Republicans.
Exactly right. The time has come for impeachment, per Andrew C. McCarthy: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392726/point-impeachment-andrew-c-mccarthy
Gabe's plan would reduce this country to ashes. It would amount to the final step in Obama's play, to undermine the entire Constitutional system with one final blow, delivered not by him but by the Republicans.
Posted by: Kaner at November 18, 2014 11:08 AM (evUpK)
158
It would save conservatives a lot of outrage and spilled ink (so to speak) if we would recognize this:
The concept that both sides are supposed to play by the same rules is now a conservative one. Maybe it used to be held by both sides.
Try telling a liberal that if you give this much power to a liberal president, or liberal Supreme Court justices, or to the government as a whole, someday it will be available to conservatives who'll use it against them in just this way. Their reaction is, that's why it's so important to make sure only WE can wield it. From there, it becomes, well, forgivable to break the law, cheat, do whatever they have to to hang on.
The concept that both sides are supposed to play by the same rules is now a conservative one. Maybe it used to be held by both sides.
Try telling a liberal that if you give this much power to a liberal president, or liberal Supreme Court justices, or to the government as a whole, someday it will be available to conservatives who'll use it against them in just this way. Their reaction is, that's why it's so important to make sure only WE can wield it. From there, it becomes, well, forgivable to break the law, cheat, do whatever they have to to hang on.
Posted by: JPS at November 18, 2014 11:08 AM (ePCv5)
Posted by: Michael Vick at November 18, 2014 11:08 AM (OWjjx)
160
Dish dropped CNN & HLN and replaced it with The Blaze. (for now)
Posted by: Iblis at November 18, 2014 11:05 AM (U0ndG)
No not the Blaze- You already of the "One America Network" - at least you do on Fios. It is also Conserative in nature
Posted by: Iblis at November 18, 2014 11:05 AM (U0ndG)
No not the Blaze- You already of the "One America Network" - at least you do on Fios. It is also Conserative in nature
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:08 AM (M0mf2)
161
The reason the shutdown failed is that the Repubs caved, as per usual.
Posted by: Titanium at November 18, 2014 11:08 AM (j/0FK)
162
This thread is already 45 minutes old, which is like a Millennium in gray box world. But the post says, if I read it right, that two wrongs don't make a right. Which is fine in Sunday school, but not so useful in Mordor, where it seems we've been thrust.
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 11:08 AM (5+mPY)
163
In the past when Presidents went down this path, the Congress fought back to protect its own prerogatives. Now with this latest bunch of socialists, who wish to destroy the constitution, there's no incentive to protect constitutional powers. All that matters to them is will to power.
Posted by: Iblis at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (U0ndG)
164
F*ck 'em.
They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way!
If this is the game they want to play. Then, fine.. let's play it.
If we win the Presidency in 2016 and retain the Senate and the House, we immediately throw out the filibuster rule. 51 votes passes everything.
Then we start legislating to un-do all this mess.
We won't need Presidential fiats.
If we lose the Presidency in 2016, maybe we should do it anyway. Hell.. we should probably do it this January!
They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way!
If this is the game they want to play. Then, fine.. let's play it.
If we win the Presidency in 2016 and retain the Senate and the House, we immediately throw out the filibuster rule. 51 votes passes everything.
Then we start legislating to un-do all this mess.
We won't need Presidential fiats.
If we lose the Presidency in 2016, maybe we should do it anyway. Hell.. we should probably do it this January!
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (so+oy)
165
The time for a Second Declaration of Independence may be close at hand. You could pretty much apply the entire preamble to the behavior of King Barry's regime.
Posted by: Insomniac at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (DrWcr)
166
2016 will be a Reform Cycle with a Trust Election.
A Republican president and a more conservative Congress will have the mandate to change or eliminate burdensome laws and even elimin .. oops ... "consolidate" federal departments. Clean Air Act, EPA, HHS, etc. everything will be on the table.
A Republican president and a more conservative Congress will have the mandate to change or eliminate burdensome laws and even elimin .. oops ... "consolidate" federal departments. Clean Air Act, EPA, HHS, etc. everything will be on the table.
Posted by: mrp at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (JBggj)
167
>>>Conservatives are pretty big on the Constitution. The idea that you can break it to save it, strikes me as nonsensical as anything a liberal like Ezra Klein would say about the Constitution.
So let the enemy force us to play by our rules when they won't follow them? You didn't read Rules For Radicals did you? No we are *not* adherents to the Constitution as if it a Bible. We are proponents for the rule of law. And when rule of law is absent, by our own rules, we can use any means to restore it. If that doesn't make sense to you, you should re study the revolution.
So let the enemy force us to play by our rules when they won't follow them? You didn't read Rules For Radicals did you? No we are *not* adherents to the Constitution as if it a Bible. We are proponents for the rule of law. And when rule of law is absent, by our own rules, we can use any means to restore it. If that doesn't make sense to you, you should re study the revolution.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (HwWo9)
168
The "goodwill" that The President and the Dems have is just about all gone. A shutdown would go down very differently this time
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (M0mf2)
169
It's also hard to prevent Obama from not deporting people by cutting off funds.
How much does it cost to *not* do something?
How much does it cost to *not* do something?
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (ZPrif)
170
We shouldn't match the dimocraps' scumbaggery, we should double it.
Otherwise, they will continue to pile up points until there is no America left.
You can't let the enemy Nuke your Cities, Towns and Bases and send them flowers afterwards.
Unless you're losers.
And yes, Virginia. scum of the earth dimocraps are NOT the loyal opposition.
They are the enemy of this Country and everything it stands for. They are NOT JFK or even FDR liberals, they are the scum of the earth.
Period
Otherwise, they will continue to pile up points until there is no America left.
You can't let the enemy Nuke your Cities, Towns and Bases and send them flowers afterwards.
Unless you're losers.
And yes, Virginia. scum of the earth dimocraps are NOT the loyal opposition.
They are the enemy of this Country and everything it stands for. They are NOT JFK or even FDR liberals, they are the scum of the earth.
Period
Posted by: Uncle Rick at November 18, 2014 11:10 AM (ZbB1q)
Posted by: Bob Belcher at November 18, 2014 11:10 AM (yshTX)
172
So does every war of liberation.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:06 AM (ZPrif)
Most "wars of liberation" have ended in strong-man tyrannies, so I'm thinking... not.
It's not the entropy which fixes anything- it's the dedication to returning to a Just Order afterwards. In fact, I would suggest that in the case of any "war of liberation" which did *not* end in strong-man tyranny, it was expressly because the liberators themselves were not advocating entropy- mindless destruction- rather they were engaging in very specific, controlled demolition of an Unjust Order.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:06 AM (ZPrif)
Most "wars of liberation" have ended in strong-man tyrannies, so I'm thinking... not.
It's not the entropy which fixes anything- it's the dedication to returning to a Just Order afterwards. In fact, I would suggest that in the case of any "war of liberation" which did *not* end in strong-man tyranny, it was expressly because the liberators themselves were not advocating entropy- mindless destruction- rather they were engaging in very specific, controlled demolition of an Unjust Order.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) with a new job at November 18, 2014 11:10 AM (kff5f)
173
I read both Cooke and Malor and now this. I'm with Cooke/DrewM.
The main takeaway is Drew's point that the Repubs (and Gabe does this too) are always saying that we'll get them next time. But it's always "next time," and once the damage is done, the R's can't or won't undo it.
It's also a problem that R's will cave now on this (preemptively taking "shut-down" off the table). We need to win this now. There are some voices on the Dem side starting to murmur; even the WaPo today. Fight now.
The main takeaway is Drew's point that the Repubs (and Gabe does this too) are always saying that we'll get them next time. But it's always "next time," and once the damage is done, the R's can't or won't undo it.
It's also a problem that R's will cave now on this (preemptively taking "shut-down" off the table). We need to win this now. There are some voices on the Dem side starting to murmur; even the WaPo today. Fight now.
Posted by: lawdvd at November 18, 2014 11:11 AM (ChY2Q)
Posted by: seems legit at November 18, 2014 11:11 AM (A98Xu)
175
I'm just spit-balling this but hear me out. What if the founding fathers left one essential thing out of their construction of America, and that one thing was possibly the way it could fail? I'm speaking here of the notion of a country of laws, where there is a contract to respect the rule of law, for fear that liberty and freedom crumble in a lawless society. Back in the 1700's fear of tyranny would have made for a good reality show, but today it no longer exists in the contemporary psychee.
Today's progressives have no fear of any worse structure of government; to the contrary they often praise many of the most repressive. There is no fear...just power. And if the president sees the constitution as an artifact of a previous era then so be it. With a compliant legislature and no creative use of lawfare, the constitution that was so brilliantly crafted so as to anticipate almost all abuses of power fails due to a simple breach-of-contract.
Laws? What laws?
never heard of 'em
Today's progressives have no fear of any worse structure of government; to the contrary they often praise many of the most repressive. There is no fear...just power. And if the president sees the constitution as an artifact of a previous era then so be it. With a compliant legislature and no creative use of lawfare, the constitution that was so brilliantly crafted so as to anticipate almost all abuses of power fails due to a simple breach-of-contract.
Laws? What laws?
never heard of 'em
Posted by: Daisy Cutter at November 18, 2014 11:11 AM (xdMK5)
176
Posted by: Iblis at November 18, 2014 11:00 AM (U0ndG)
Well said....
I look at it like... CAIR (who UAE just declared a terrorist organization).
We KNEW they had terrorists amongst them, they had been convicted... yet because they said things some wanted to hear... that Islam was really peaceful... we allowed them into the very centers of US Government power.
They had input into national Policy.... telling us LIES that some wanted to hear, because the truth was unpalatable... and would uncover a problem THEY did not want to deal with.
WE the people, do not want to hear the truth... that the Covenant between the People, States, and Federal Government, known as the US Constitution, has been broken.... by the very entity which purports to ENFORCE that very Constitution.
Well said....
I look at it like... CAIR (who UAE just declared a terrorist organization).
We KNEW they had terrorists amongst them, they had been convicted... yet because they said things some wanted to hear... that Islam was really peaceful... we allowed them into the very centers of US Government power.
They had input into national Policy.... telling us LIES that some wanted to hear, because the truth was unpalatable... and would uncover a problem THEY did not want to deal with.
WE the people, do not want to hear the truth... that the Covenant between the People, States, and Federal Government, known as the US Constitution, has been broken.... by the very entity which purports to ENFORCE that very Constitution.
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 11:11 AM (f0pWu)
177
Well, all law is--at the end of the day--a force of will.
No. It's codified and accepted via the Constitutional process. It's not whim or will alone. That is the distinction. If mere will is loosed in the world, every man is a tyrant restrained only by the fear of consequence.
No. It's codified and accepted via the Constitutional process. It's not whim or will alone. That is the distinction. If mere will is loosed in the world, every man is a tyrant restrained only by the fear of consequence.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:11 AM (evdj2)
178
On the third hand, we have once again fallen into what the R's should or shouldn't do, completely forgetting they not so secretly want the executive amnesty so they can satisfy big business and have the issue at the same time.
They will give nothing and like it.
On the third hand, we have once again fallen into what the R's should or shouldn't do, completely forgetting they not so secretly want the executive amnesty so they can satisfy big business and have the issue at the same time.
They will give nothing and like it.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 18, 2014 11:11 AM (1nB6R)
179
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:06 AM (Aow3m)
But the left will tell you that Bush did issue illegal executive orders. That's the problem. The left and right don't agree with what the law MEANS.
The final arbiter isn't the best either. We're constantly one Kennedy away from tyranny.
But the left will tell you that Bush did issue illegal executive orders. That's the problem. The left and right don't agree with what the law MEANS.
The final arbiter isn't the best either. We're constantly one Kennedy away from tyranny.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 11:11 AM (fwARV)
180
168 The "goodwill" that The President and the Dems have is just about all gone. A shutdown would go down very differently this time
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (M0mf2)
Too bad our side took it off the table then, isn't it.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (M0mf2)
Too bad our side took it off the table then, isn't it.
Posted by: Iblis at November 18, 2014 11:12 AM (U0ndG)
181
There are remedies other than impeachment--a king cannot rule if he has no one to enforce his will.
All the GOP has to say is, "Any one who dares enforce Executive Order X will be held in contempt of Congress and WILL be thrown in jail. Every department head, every agent, everyone right down to the secretary or the guy hired last week is on notice: You will enforce the law as it is written and you WILL NOT interpret it as Obama suggests."
Not this nancy-boy, pussy shit they've been doing of talk, talk and more fucking talk.
Posted by: RoyalOil at November 18, 2014 11:07 AM (VjL9S)
I LIKE IT!!
All the GOP has to say is, "Any one who dares enforce Executive Order X will be held in contempt of Congress and WILL be thrown in jail. Every department head, every agent, everyone right down to the secretary or the guy hired last week is on notice: You will enforce the law as it is written and you WILL NOT interpret it as Obama suggests."
Not this nancy-boy, pussy shit they've been doing of talk, talk and more fucking talk.
Posted by: RoyalOil at November 18, 2014 11:07 AM (VjL9S)
I LIKE IT!!
Posted by: DJ Jazzy Mel at November 18, 2014 11:12 AM (BLFGI)
182
Incidentally, can someone tell me the point of impeachment? Clinton was impeached and nothing happened--he didn't resign, he didn't lose face, he didn't even pay a fine. Is "impeachment" the equivalent of saying, "Well, you're a meany-head and a stoop"?
Posted by: Null at November 18, 2014 10:44 AM (P7hip)
______________________________
Impeachment is a two-part process. First the articles of impeachment are laid -- meaning that the president is accused of wrongdoing (i.e. "treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors") by the House of Representatives. This is akin to an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding.
The second part is the trial, in the Senate. In order for the president to be removed from office, he must be tried and convicted of the impeachable offense. Bill Clinton was impeached and tried, but not convicted. That is why he remained in office.
Think of a criminal suspect who gets indicted for burglary. The indictment is the formal accusation. Then the suspect gets a trial, where the government has to present evidence in an attempt to prove the accusation in the indictment. If the government fails, then the accused burglar is acquitted (i.e. found "not guilty") and he goes free.
Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate after he was impeached by the House. Had he been convicted, Clinton would have been forcibly removed from the presidency.
Posted by: Null at November 18, 2014 10:44 AM (P7hip)
______________________________
Impeachment is a two-part process. First the articles of impeachment are laid -- meaning that the president is accused of wrongdoing (i.e. "treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors") by the House of Representatives. This is akin to an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding.
The second part is the trial, in the Senate. In order for the president to be removed from office, he must be tried and convicted of the impeachable offense. Bill Clinton was impeached and tried, but not convicted. That is why he remained in office.
Think of a criminal suspect who gets indicted for burglary. The indictment is the formal accusation. Then the suspect gets a trial, where the government has to present evidence in an attempt to prove the accusation in the indictment. If the government fails, then the accused burglar is acquitted (i.e. found "not guilty") and he goes free.
Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate after he was impeached by the House. Had he been convicted, Clinton would have been forcibly removed from the presidency.
Posted by: Senator Phil E. Buster at November 18, 2014 11:12 AM (2ruKl)
183
I honestly believe 90% of what Obama is doing here is to bait Republicans into impeaching him.
I'm amazed there's a chorus of conservatives that want to play into his hands.
Do I believe Obama should be impeached if he tries this? Yes.
Do we have the votes? No.
Will it give a 2nd wind to his Presidency and destroy the goodwill voters gave Republicans? Absolutely.
Please explain to me what value going through an impeachment and Obama being "exonerated" will do for the conservative agenda?
I'm amazed there's a chorus of conservatives that want to play into his hands.
Do I believe Obama should be impeached if he tries this? Yes.
Do we have the votes? No.
Will it give a 2nd wind to his Presidency and destroy the goodwill voters gave Republicans? Absolutely.
Please explain to me what value going through an impeachment and Obama being "exonerated" will do for the conservative agenda?
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:12 AM (Aow3m)
184
It's also hard to prevent Obama from not deporting people by cutting off funds.
How much does it cost to *not* do something?
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (ZPrif)
Yes very true. Benign neglect and deceit work all by themselves for free.
And I would also like to know who giving anyone "Amnesty" solves out "Immigration" problem?
How much does it cost to *not* do something?
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (ZPrif)
Yes very true. Benign neglect and deceit work all by themselves for free.
And I would also like to know who giving anyone "Amnesty" solves out "Immigration" problem?
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:12 AM (M0mf2)
185
Stop thinking of this as "America".
"America", as we knew it, has been reduced to a handful of regions and outposts. The rest will need to be reclaimed and repacified by whatever methods prove necessary to the task.
It's time...long past time...we acknowledged the situation has changed. We're not fighting to save something. We're fighting to someday be able to rebuild it. And that means clearing ground to do so in the face of hostile conditions.
The sooner we get that through our skulls the better.
"America", as we knew it, has been reduced to a handful of regions and outposts. The rest will need to be reclaimed and repacified by whatever methods prove necessary to the task.
It's time...long past time...we acknowledged the situation has changed. We're not fighting to save something. We're fighting to someday be able to rebuild it. And that means clearing ground to do so in the face of hostile conditions.
The sooner we get that through our skulls the better.
Posted by: Brother Cavil at November 18, 2014 11:14 AM (zWC0k)
186
Let. It. Burn.
Posted by: Valiant at November 18, 2014 11:14 AM (4rlxS)
187
Cooke is right. When we replace the rule of law with the rule of man, the descent into, at best, dictatorship, and at worst, warlordism and gang rule, is inevitable. We cannot go there.
What we CAN do by executive order and regulation is repeal all of the illegal executive orders and regulations. This should be a focus of the transition so that on Day Two (Day One is all parties and parades) the new President can issue an executive order repealing hundreds of existing EOs and directing the departments to immediately repeal any regulations enacted on the basis of those EOs. Then we clear the decks and start looking, as per the Dan Quayle Competitiveness Council, at the excessive regulations enacted on the basis of laws, and start looking at reinterpreting those laws through new regulations.
What we CAN do by executive order and regulation is repeal all of the illegal executive orders and regulations. This should be a focus of the transition so that on Day Two (Day One is all parties and parades) the new President can issue an executive order repealing hundreds of existing EOs and directing the departments to immediately repeal any regulations enacted on the basis of those EOs. Then we clear the decks and start looking, as per the Dan Quayle Competitiveness Council, at the excessive regulations enacted on the basis of laws, and start looking at reinterpreting those laws through new regulations.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 18, 2014 11:14 AM (5f5bM)
188
Do I believe Obama should be impeached if he tries this? Yes.
Do we have the votes? No.
Will it give a 2nd wind to his Presidency and destroy the goodwill voters gave Republicans? Absolutely.
So we let him do what he likes? Because that's the takeaway I'm getting.
Do we have the votes? No.
Will it give a 2nd wind to his Presidency and destroy the goodwill voters gave Republicans? Absolutely.
So we let him do what he likes? Because that's the takeaway I'm getting.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at November 18, 2014 11:14 AM (zF6Iw)
189
@183....I don't know, but it has to do with hills.
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President of the Sheena Easton Fan Club at November 18, 2014 11:14 AM (OWjjx)
190
162 This thread is already 45 minutes old, which is like a Millennium in gray box world. But the post says, if I read it right, that two wrongs don't make a right. Which is fine in Sunday school, but not so useful in Mordor, where it seems we've been thrust.
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 11:08 AM (5+mPY)
Two wrongs don't make a right...
but Two RIGHT will turn you around...
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 11:08 AM (5+mPY)
Two wrongs don't make a right...
but Two RIGHT will turn you around...
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 11:14 AM (f0pWu)
191
Fight fire with napalm. BUT....attach a signing document to every order stating that this is the "DEMOCRAT/OBAMA playbook.". Attach a 5pg treatise.
Say/publish/argue again and again that you disagree with letting Democrats violate the Constitution so you will continue sctinh lawlessly until the lesson is learned. Use the same teaching document each damn time. Make the msm cover, read and report on it.
The GOALS are:
1) Educate the public
2) *Lose* a whole lot of court cases and get judges to have case law power to use against the next imperial presidency.
Say/publish/argue again and again that you disagree with letting Democrats violate the Constitution so you will continue sctinh lawlessly until the lesson is learned. Use the same teaching document each damn time. Make the msm cover, read and report on it.
The GOALS are:
1) Educate the public
2) *Lose* a whole lot of court cases and get judges to have case law power to use against the next imperial presidency.
Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 18, 2014 11:14 AM (EThm9)
192
Too bad our side took it off the table then, isn't it.
Posted by: Iblis at November 18, 2014 11:12 AM (U0ndG)
the Majority leaders don't really run Congress, the Majority does. We can steamroll Bohner and have often. Now McConnell is a little more difficult because of the rules of the Senate but still
Posted by: Iblis at November 18, 2014 11:12 AM (U0ndG)
the Majority leaders don't really run Congress, the Majority does. We can steamroll Bohner and have often. Now McConnell is a little more difficult because of the rules of the Senate but still
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:15 AM (M0mf2)
193
The oath of office is the only teeth that the constitution has http://wp.me/p4eTOp-5y6
Posted by: dedomeno at November 18, 2014 11:15 AM (UccCH)
194
Two wrongs don't make a right...
But three lefts, do.
Not that it has anything to do with the current discussion...
But three lefts, do.
Not that it has anything to do with the current discussion...
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) with a new job at November 18, 2014 11:16 AM (kff5f)
195
188 Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at November 18, 2014 11:14 AM (zF6Iw)
Right it is VITAL we not impeach him for OBVIOUSLY impeachable deeds BECAUSE it will *cost* us what he will have rendered a neutered branch perhaps in 2016 when they cheat their asses off to win using his 5-15 million "newer better Americans"...
Fuck him, fuck them, and fuck anyone who thinks we can just ride this cocksucker out.
Right it is VITAL we not impeach him for OBVIOUSLY impeachable deeds BECAUSE it will *cost* us what he will have rendered a neutered branch perhaps in 2016 when they cheat their asses off to win using his 5-15 million "newer better Americans"...
Fuck him, fuck them, and fuck anyone who thinks we can just ride this cocksucker out.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:16 AM (/4AZU)
196
Incidentally, can someone tell me the point of impeachment? Clinton was impeached and nothing happened--he didn't resign, he didn't lose face, he didn't even pay a fine. Is "impeachment" the equivalent of saying, "Well, you're a meany-head and a stoop"?
Posted by: Null at November 18, 2014 10:44 AM (P7hip)
Clinton was impeached but the impeachment trial resulted in a vote by the Senate that was less than needed to remove him from office. The optics of the long trial and then the Senate voting to keep him in office resulted in a 75% approval rating for Clinton.
Why? Because the MSM and lack at the time of any meaningful internet news sites, talk radio was still in the AM only stage, promoted the entire impeachment trial as being a political stunt by Republicans over the Presidents sexual affair in the oval office. The lying to the country and to a Federal prosecutor under oath was buried. Ask most people today what Clinton was impeached for and they'll say because he had oral sex performed by an intern, which is no one's business.
Clinton was then tried in Arkansas by the Law bar there and had his license to practice law revoked for lying under oath in the Paula Jones, case(not the Lewinsky case). He paid $25,000 in fines. His law license was suspended for five years. In 2001, the US Supreme Court suspended him from being able to argue cases in front of it due to the Arkansas suspension.
Of course, you almost never hear anything about Clinton's disbarment or fines in Arkansas, because it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. He is an absolute hero to the left, and still belongs to the former President's club, which includes both of the Bush's who go out of their way to fawn over and include him in fund raising, etc.
Posted by: Null at November 18, 2014 10:44 AM (P7hip)
Clinton was impeached but the impeachment trial resulted in a vote by the Senate that was less than needed to remove him from office. The optics of the long trial and then the Senate voting to keep him in office resulted in a 75% approval rating for Clinton.
Why? Because the MSM and lack at the time of any meaningful internet news sites, talk radio was still in the AM only stage, promoted the entire impeachment trial as being a political stunt by Republicans over the Presidents sexual affair in the oval office. The lying to the country and to a Federal prosecutor under oath was buried. Ask most people today what Clinton was impeached for and they'll say because he had oral sex performed by an intern, which is no one's business.
Clinton was then tried in Arkansas by the Law bar there and had his license to practice law revoked for lying under oath in the Paula Jones, case(not the Lewinsky case). He paid $25,000 in fines. His law license was suspended for five years. In 2001, the US Supreme Court suspended him from being able to argue cases in front of it due to the Arkansas suspension.
Of course, you almost never hear anything about Clinton's disbarment or fines in Arkansas, because it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. He is an absolute hero to the left, and still belongs to the former President's club, which includes both of the Bush's who go out of their way to fawn over and include him in fund raising, etc.
Posted by: Jen the original at November 18, 2014 11:16 AM (hjTr7)
197
the Majority leaders don't really run Congress, the Majority does. We can steamroll Bohner and have often. Now McConnell is a little more difficult because of the rules of the Senate but still
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:15 AM (M0mf2)
I so wish. Really.
the Majority leaders don't really run Congress, the Majority does. We can steamroll Bohner and have often. Now McConnell is a little more difficult because of the rules of the Senate but still
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:15 AM (M0mf2)
I so wish. Really.
Posted by: Iblis at November 18, 2014 11:17 AM (U0ndG)
198
On the matter of Executive orders, what constitutional authority does Congress have (and I'm thinking majority or supermajority votes) to alter or render the EO null and void?
Posted by: mrp at November 18, 2014 11:17 AM (JBggj)
199
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at November 18, 2014 11:14 AM (5f5bM)
And that will NOT happen.
They will hem and haw... and then say 'there is a tradition of Executive orders in this country soooo....'
Do you really see ANYONE who could be elected right now... anyone high enough in the Republican Ranks to be elected President, who has the Moral Courage that George Washington displayed when he voluntarily gave up power?
And that will NOT happen.
They will hem and haw... and then say 'there is a tradition of Executive orders in this country soooo....'
Do you really see ANYONE who could be elected right now... anyone high enough in the Republican Ranks to be elected President, who has the Moral Courage that George Washington displayed when he voluntarily gave up power?
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 11:17 AM (f0pWu)
200
Well, you're quibbling now.
War, pretty much by definition, increases entropy with all the smashing and what-not.
The intent, of course, is to trade short-term chaos for long-term order.
But it's silly to deny the short-term chaos that is inevitable in any war -- whether it leads to a good or bad post-war order.
War, pretty much by definition, increases entropy with all the smashing and what-not.
The intent, of course, is to trade short-term chaos for long-term order.
But it's silly to deny the short-term chaos that is inevitable in any war -- whether it leads to a good or bad post-war order.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:17 AM (ZPrif)
201
So why doesn't the Congress just fund each agency piecemeal so that at the end when they get to the problematic ones like with immigration they can cut out the funds for it and say take it or leave it without shutting down the government? Hell you could cut the CO2 enforcement funding from the EPA and it Obama doesn't like it then the agency can shut down. No one will notice the difference.
If Republicans aren't prepared to do something like that then they are useless and there is no reason to vote for them.
If Republicans aren't prepared to do something like that then they are useless and there is no reason to vote for them.
Posted by: Thatch at November 18, 2014 11:18 AM (m/nBa)
202
Of course we all know a Republican President won't do that because it would be politically unpopular with Latino voters.
I'm past the point of giving a shit what Latino voters, or anyone else, think. If they're at such odds with the way we've been running things for the past 230 years or so, they can go live somewhere else, just like the moslem filth that is so intent upon changing America into some muzzie shithole by destroying our rights and our freedom.
It's a big wide world out there. Nearly 200 very different countries last time I looked. If you don't like it here, then there's certainly some other place that's more to your liking. Go. There. Now. and leave me and my countrymen in peace.
I'm past the point of giving a shit what Latino voters, or anyone else, think. If they're at such odds with the way we've been running things for the past 230 years or so, they can go live somewhere else, just like the moslem filth that is so intent upon changing America into some muzzie shithole by destroying our rights and our freedom.
It's a big wide world out there. Nearly 200 very different countries last time I looked. If you don't like it here, then there's certainly some other place that's more to your liking. Go. There. Now. and leave me and my countrymen in peace.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Curmudgeon Extraordinaire at November 18, 2014 11:18 AM (0HooB)
203
198 On the matter of Executive orders, what constitutional authority does Congress have (and I'm thinking majority or supermajority votes) to alter or render the EO null and void?
Posted by: mrp at November 18, 2014 11:17 AM (JBggj)
Well... seeing as how Executive orders have no Constitutional Basis?
Especially one that says ignore a law, or part of a Law???
Posted by: mrp at November 18, 2014 11:17 AM (JBggj)
Well... seeing as how Executive orders have no Constitutional Basis?
Especially one that says ignore a law, or part of a Law???
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 11:18 AM (f0pWu)
204
I didn't take from Gabe that he favors wholesale adoption of the Obama Rule. Just a targeted application.
And for once, I agree with Gabe.
On the other hand and it will take a special kind of Republican to taste that kind of power and not go full-Palpatine.
Sooooo.. I guess I'm with DrewM and Cooke after all.
Sigh.
And for once, I agree with Gabe.
On the other hand and it will take a special kind of Republican to taste that kind of power and not go full-Palpatine.
Sooooo.. I guess I'm with DrewM and Cooke after all.
Sigh.
Posted by: Chico Esquela at November 18, 2014 11:18 AM (K44uE)
205
152 All the GOP has to say is, "Any one who dares enforce Executive Order X will be held in contempt of Congress and WILL be thrown in jail.
Except that the executive branch is the one with cops.
Except that the executive branch is the one with cops.
Posted by: Anachronda at November 18, 2014 11:19 AM (sGtp+)
206
196 Posted by: Jen the original at November 18, 2014 11:16 AM (hjTr7)
The Chief Law Enforcer in the United States suborned perjury and lied to a grand jury....
wanna know how we got Obama?
Bill Clinton....America started slouching to Imperialism right around the time we let the media Jedi handwave away High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The Chief Law Enforcer in the United States suborned perjury and lied to a grand jury....
wanna know how we got Obama?
Bill Clinton....America started slouching to Imperialism right around the time we let the media Jedi handwave away High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:19 AM (/4AZU)
207
Too Funny Ferguson Protest Leaders Car Stolen While Meeting With Fellow Protesters
This is one of the loons who stormed a St. Louis Symphony concert, where they chanted and hung a Michael Brown banner.
Weasel Zippers
What goes around, comes around
This is one of the loons who stormed a St. Louis Symphony concert, where they chanted and hung a Michael Brown banner.
Weasel Zippers
What goes around, comes around
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:19 AM (M0mf2)
208
One of the first things that need to be done is for states to stand up and re-establish their sovereignty. Until that happens, DC will keep running roughshod over our rights.
The path back to Constitutional freedom resides within the individual states.
The path back to Constitutional freedom resides within the individual states.
Posted by: Soona at November 18, 2014 11:20 AM (qaepl)
209
If ya'll had passed the The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 2007 we wouldn't need to be talking about this now.
Posted by: Georgy W. Bush, Republican at November 18, 2014 11:20 AM (SaMXZ)
210
Noah Rothman @NoahCRothman 4m
We could hope for no greater symbol of the impotence of the left media, which is universally opposed to Keystone, than 60 votes.
This is a good point. ProgMedia is 100% opposed to the Keystone. They think it's Teh Debil.
But Americans ignore them. ProgMedia is losing power and influence every day.
We could hope for no greater symbol of the impotence of the left media, which is universally opposed to Keystone, than 60 votes.
This is a good point. ProgMedia is 100% opposed to the Keystone. They think it's Teh Debil.
But Americans ignore them. ProgMedia is losing power and influence every day.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:20 AM (ZPrif)
211
If that doesn't make sense to you, you should re study the revolution.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (HwWo9)
------
Those pasty white old fuckers were pretty smart.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM (HwWo9)
------
Those pasty white old fuckers were pretty smart.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 11:20 AM (NaV4z)
Posted by: Bandersnatch at November 18, 2014 11:20 AM (JtwS4)
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:21 AM (evdj2)
214
How much does it cost to *not* do something?
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM
Some states may choose to tax to keep paying for illegals. Some won't. By not funding food stamps, Obamacare, Medicaid, housing, education, job fairs, etc there will be a lot of "relatives" who don't want them here after all and will be willing to send them back as well as self deporters who are not all about working. Cut the money to non-profits who support the illegals. If they want to use their own privately raised funds I'm ok with that but not tax dollars that the public indicated by the last election they are against. Illegal immigration has extorted its way into our society. That needs to stop in all ways. The problem is not private funds supporting humanitarian needs of illegals, it is the extortion of public funds against the will of the taxed being used. When proponents of amnesty understand they as individuals have to foot the bill they change their tune. It is a scam.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:09 AM
Some states may choose to tax to keep paying for illegals. Some won't. By not funding food stamps, Obamacare, Medicaid, housing, education, job fairs, etc there will be a lot of "relatives" who don't want them here after all and will be willing to send them back as well as self deporters who are not all about working. Cut the money to non-profits who support the illegals. If they want to use their own privately raised funds I'm ok with that but not tax dollars that the public indicated by the last election they are against. Illegal immigration has extorted its way into our society. That needs to stop in all ways. The problem is not private funds supporting humanitarian needs of illegals, it is the extortion of public funds against the will of the taxed being used. When proponents of amnesty understand they as individuals have to foot the bill they change their tune. It is a scam.
Posted by: Lester at November 18, 2014 11:21 AM (2UPXV)
215
She actually said that.
Noah Rothman @NoahCRothman 5m
"To me, it's extra lethal." - Barbara Boxer on what the "XL" in Keystone XL Pipeline stands for.
Noah Rothman @NoahCRothman 5m
"To me, it's extra lethal." - Barbara Boxer on what the "XL" in Keystone XL Pipeline stands for.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:21 AM (ZPrif)
216
Jimbo, #183:
"Please explain to me what value going through an impeachment and Obama being "exonerated" will do for the conservative agenda?"
Consider:
"I think this situation absolutely requires that a really stupid and futile gesture be done on someone's part."
"And we're JUST THE GUYS TO DO IT!"
"Please explain to me what value going through an impeachment and Obama being "exonerated" will do for the conservative agenda?"
Consider:
"I think this situation absolutely requires that a really stupid and futile gesture be done on someone's part."
"And we're JUST THE GUYS TO DO IT!"
Posted by: JPS at November 18, 2014 11:21 AM (ePCv5)
217
188 Do I believe Obama should be impeached if he tries this? Yes.
Do we have the votes? No.
Will it give a 2nd wind to his Presidency and destroy the goodwill voters gave Republicans? Absolutely.
So we let him do what he likes? Because that's the takeaway I'm getting.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing
Impeachment is giving exactly "what Obama likes".
Please give me the list of elected Democrats that are going to vote to remove the President from office, which would be a first in American history.
I doubt you'll get a single one.
There's all sort of alternate ways of dealing with this, like cutting off funds for the departments that would hand out green cards, etc.
The Left is clearly BEGGING Republicans to impeach Obama, it's their ultimate fantasy because they know it will be an epic failure on our part.
You want to see a dictator on steroids? Wait till you impeach him and the vote isn't even close.
Do we have the votes? No.
Will it give a 2nd wind to his Presidency and destroy the goodwill voters gave Republicans? Absolutely.
So we let him do what he likes? Because that's the takeaway I'm getting.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing
Impeachment is giving exactly "what Obama likes".
Please give me the list of elected Democrats that are going to vote to remove the President from office, which would be a first in American history.
I doubt you'll get a single one.
There's all sort of alternate ways of dealing with this, like cutting off funds for the departments that would hand out green cards, etc.
The Left is clearly BEGGING Republicans to impeach Obama, it's their ultimate fantasy because they know it will be an epic failure on our part.
You want to see a dictator on steroids? Wait till you impeach him and the vote isn't even close.
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:21 AM (Aow3m)
218
There's only one rule in a Roshambo presidency: tie goes to the executive.
Posted by: Fritz at November 18, 2014 11:21 AM (UzPAd)
219
Posted by: Mac
he serves no further use to them, but as a foil to launch their survival and whomever they run in 2016.
he serves no further use to them, but as a foil to launch their survival and whomever they run in 2016.
Posted by: Blue Hen at November 18, 2014 11:21 AM (Spluw)
220
213 Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:21 AM (evdj2)
and those states may not form a Federal Union this time...
and we should accept that.
and those states may not form a Federal Union this time...
and we should accept that.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:22 AM (/4AZU)
221
If ya'll had passed the The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 2007 we wouldn't need to be talking about this now.
Posted by: Georgy W. Bush, Republican
Sez you
Posted by: Georgy W. Bush, Republican
Sez you
Posted by: Immigration reform Act of 1986 at November 18, 2014 11:23 AM (Spluw)
222
204 I didn't take from Gabe that he favors wholesale adoption of the Obama Rule. Just a targeted application.
And for once, I agree with Gabe.
On the other hand and it will take a special kind of Republican to taste that kind of power and not go full-Palpatine.
Sooooo.. I guess I'm with DrewM and Cooke after all.
Sigh.
Posted by: Chico Esquela at November 18, 2014 11:18 AM (K44uE)
The problem is, that once a Covenant is broken... it can never really be repaired.
and when you break a principle, especially one dealing with power... it sets a precedent which WILL be used by those in the future...
And for once, I agree with Gabe.
On the other hand and it will take a special kind of Republican to taste that kind of power and not go full-Palpatine.
Sooooo.. I guess I'm with DrewM and Cooke after all.
Sigh.
Posted by: Chico Esquela at November 18, 2014 11:18 AM (K44uE)
The problem is, that once a Covenant is broken... it can never really be repaired.
and when you break a principle, especially one dealing with power... it sets a precedent which WILL be used by those in the future...
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 11:23 AM (f0pWu)
223
You have an unpopular president doing incredibly unpopular things and the Republican congress has to pass the funding for everything Obama wants or else they are shutting down the government? Stop funding Obama's overreaches, and you have two years to convince the country you are right. Why not spend a few tens of millions on getting the message out instead of saving it for an election in two years that you are in the process of losing by non-action. Make Obama veto everything and eventually the message that he is the problem will get out with a little advertising shove. Don't fund his shit, Jees, what is wrong with these guys?
Posted by: dirks strewn at November 18, 2014 11:23 AM (mG3zA)
224
>>>>On the matter of Executive orders, what constitutional authority does
Congress have (and I'm thinking majority or supermajority votes) to
alter or render the EO null and void?<<<<
Well with supermajority there is impeachment, but that would never happen because the R's are too afraid of the Blackish.
With a majority, they have the power of the purse to deny all funding to the Immigration Service (the portion which would issue green cards). They won't do that either of course.
Congress have (and I'm thinking majority or supermajority votes) to
alter or render the EO null and void?<<<<
Well with supermajority there is impeachment, but that would never happen because the R's are too afraid of the Blackish.
With a majority, they have the power of the purse to deny all funding to the Immigration Service (the portion which would issue green cards). They won't do that either of course.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 18, 2014 11:23 AM (1nB6R)
225
Fredo just covered for Abbas and made a moral equivelency argument and called on "Both" side to refrain from violence?????
And says a majority of Palis want peace? Yeah BULLSHIT
And fuck you Fredo
And says a majority of Palis want peace? Yeah BULLSHIT
And fuck you Fredo
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:23 AM (M0mf2)
226
ProgMedia in action.
@DavidRutz: Way to go CNN!
Since Nov. 10, Fox News Channel has referenced Gruber at least 779 times on air, while MSNBC has referred to Gruber 79 times. CNN has mentioned Gruber just 27 times over the same period.
@DavidRutz: Way to go CNN!
Since Nov. 10, Fox News Channel has referenced Gruber at least 779 times on air, while MSNBC has referred to Gruber 79 times. CNN has mentioned Gruber just 27 times over the same period.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:24 AM (ZPrif)
227
Do you mean before or after the treason trials
Posted by: Andy Jackson at November 18, 2014 11:24 AM (kFxpe)
228
But it's silly to deny the short-term chaos that is inevitable in any war -- whether it leads to a good or bad post-war order.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:17 AM (ZPrif)
Well, yes. You know there's a "but" coming, after all, it's AoS. But, the choice for war, in the circumstances we find ourselves in, becomes more necessary, in my view, as the erosion of what makes this country good is taken away. If there's no breakage, they won't leave us anything to break, the rate we're going.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:17 AM (ZPrif)
Well, yes. You know there's a "but" coming, after all, it's AoS. But, the choice for war, in the circumstances we find ourselves in, becomes more necessary, in my view, as the erosion of what makes this country good is taken away. If there's no breakage, they won't leave us anything to break, the rate we're going.
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 11:24 AM (5+mPY)
229
Didn't Arkansas enact a law that was effective in diminishing the atractiveness of illegal immigration? If so, how can this be replicated?
Posted by: Blue Hen at November 18, 2014 11:24 AM (Spluw)
230
Don't fund his shit, Jees, what is wrong with these guys?
Posted by: dirks strewn at November 18, 2014 11:23 AM
Admit it, you know. You know.
Posted by: dirks strewn at November 18, 2014 11:23 AM
Admit it, you know. You know.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 18, 2014 11:25 AM (1nB6R)
231
Repubs aren't going to impeach Obama.
And they aren't going to shutdown the govt.
Boehner and McConnell have both been very clear on this.
We can debate what they *should* do -- for fun, I guess.
But they aren't going to do it.
That's why they both publicly announced "I'm not going to do that."
And they aren't going to shutdown the govt.
Boehner and McConnell have both been very clear on this.
We can debate what they *should* do -- for fun, I guess.
But they aren't going to do it.
That's why they both publicly announced "I'm not going to do that."
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:25 AM (ZPrif)
232
What difference, at this point, does it make?1!/1!?!/1!!?1?
What difference, at this point, does it make?1!/1!?!/1!!?1?
Posted by: Hillary Clinton at November 18, 2014 11:26 AM (HSmrB)
233
All of this.
Here, I'll start with the tl;dr. Yeah, no accepting the we're gonna be a dictatorship is totes not okay.
Long version: The rule of law means everything. Everything. I am not overstating this because it cannot be overstated.
The concept of the primacy of the rule of law is foundational to a republican form of governance. To reject that is to head back down the path of rule by might alone.
The reason I get so upset about the delegation doctrine is that Congress's abdication of legislative authority is an abdication of the notion of the legislative as being the locus for the rule of law. Shunting off legislative authority to the executive branch leads to the current state where many, if not most, areas of life are adjudicated in this admixture of laws that were passed by a legislature and administrative rules that were put into place by an agency without any of that bothersome law making process or consequences therefore, to say nothing about actual open debate as to what those laws will be.
The natural and probable consequence of this is the degradation of the principle of the rule of law. When you, Citizen, do not know who is making what will be treated as law and when you, Citizen, cannot affect directly who will be put into place to make those laws, then you stop being a Citizen and become a Subject.
No. Just. No.
All of this.
Here, I'll start with the tl;dr. Yeah, no accepting the we're gonna be a dictatorship is totes not okay.
Long version: The rule of law means everything. Everything. I am not overstating this because it cannot be overstated.
The concept of the primacy of the rule of law is foundational to a republican form of governance. To reject that is to head back down the path of rule by might alone.
The reason I get so upset about the delegation doctrine is that Congress's abdication of legislative authority is an abdication of the notion of the legislative as being the locus for the rule of law. Shunting off legislative authority to the executive branch leads to the current state where many, if not most, areas of life are adjudicated in this admixture of laws that were passed by a legislature and administrative rules that were put into place by an agency without any of that bothersome law making process or consequences therefore, to say nothing about actual open debate as to what those laws will be.
The natural and probable consequence of this is the degradation of the principle of the rule of law. When you, Citizen, do not know who is making what will be treated as law and when you, Citizen, cannot affect directly who will be put into place to make those laws, then you stop being a Citizen and become a Subject.
No. Just. No.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 18, 2014 11:26 AM (mf5HN)
234
RINO,
Of course the next GOP President should wield with abandon his/her executive authority pen, and everytime he should call it his Obama/Reid/Pelosi pen. The trick is to only wield it on one thing at a time so as not to gain enemies.
Corporate taxes, of course they should be abolished, but that should be left to Congress. Instead focus on the Clean Air and Water Act first, ending enforcement except for some really bad actions. Obamacare and anything that restricts the number of healthcare providers (the real reason healthcare costs are high), next then go after the Endangered Species Act.
Heck, that would be four years and it would take 10 years of litigation to try to undo it. Each time, tell the truth, the Democrats brought it upon themselves and if you want this to stop then agree to a Constitutional Convention.
Of course the next GOP President should wield with abandon his/her executive authority pen, and everytime he should call it his Obama/Reid/Pelosi pen. The trick is to only wield it on one thing at a time so as not to gain enemies.
Corporate taxes, of course they should be abolished, but that should be left to Congress. Instead focus on the Clean Air and Water Act first, ending enforcement except for some really bad actions. Obamacare and anything that restricts the number of healthcare providers (the real reason healthcare costs are high), next then go after the Endangered Species Act.
Heck, that would be four years and it would take 10 years of litigation to try to undo it. Each time, tell the truth, the Democrats brought it upon themselves and if you want this to stop then agree to a Constitutional Convention.
Posted by: doug at November 18, 2014 11:26 AM (uJ8q7)
235
The sooner we get that through our skulls the better.
Posted by: Brother Cavil at November 18, 2014 11:14 AM
Hence the "Corrective Phrenology"
Posted by: Brother Cavil at November 18, 2014 11:14 AM
Hence the "Corrective Phrenology"
Posted by: AltonJackson at November 18, 2014 11:26 AM (2Ayux)
236
Well... seeing as how Executive orders have no Constitutional Basis?
Especially one that says ignore a law, or part of a Law???
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 11:18 AM (f0pWu)
========I just finished reading a blog post in the WaPo on this matter. The House and Senate can pass legislation declaring that a EO "should not have legal effect". According to the Congressional Research Office, less than 4 percent of presidential EOs have been altered by Congress.
LINK: http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhuy3d3
Especially one that says ignore a law, or part of a Law???
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 11:18 AM (f0pWu)
========I just finished reading a blog post in the WaPo on this matter. The House and Senate can pass legislation declaring that a EO "should not have legal effect". According to the Congressional Research Office, less than 4 percent of presidential EOs have been altered by Congress.
LINK: http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhuy3d3
Posted by: mrp at November 18, 2014 11:26 AM (JBggj)
237
Of course we all know a Republican President won't do that because it would be politically unpopular with Latino voters.
"Yes, Obama can legalize millions of illegal immigrants but only temporarily"
Then it's not temporary, is it?
"Yes, Obama can legalize millions of illegal immigrants but only temporarily"
Then it's not temporary, is it?
Posted by: rickb223 at November 18, 2014 11:27 AM (w0a3q)
238
But it's silly to deny the short-term chaos that is inevitable in any war -- whether it leads to a good or bad post-war order.
Then, at best, the entropy of war is ambivalent. But it is not actively a good thing.
Or are you suggesting that the US Constitution could *only* be crafted after a war? I do not believe that. I believe that, had King George allowed the colonies their independence without war, it would have been better for everyone. War (and the entropy which accompanied it) was a necessary (and even Just) evil, but it was still an evil.
If the question is do something, even something fated to fail, to oppose further entropy now, or embrace entropy and accelerate the fall, and given the fact I wouldn't trust anyone in any position to do so to lead us back to a Just Order after the fall, I'm on the side of defending Order.
And this is as someone who believes that, regarding vast swathes of theFederal National Government, we should "Burn it down."
Then, at best, the entropy of war is ambivalent. But it is not actively a good thing.
Or are you suggesting that the US Constitution could *only* be crafted after a war? I do not believe that. I believe that, had King George allowed the colonies their independence without war, it would have been better for everyone. War (and the entropy which accompanied it) was a necessary (and even Just) evil, but it was still an evil.
If the question is do something, even something fated to fail, to oppose further entropy now, or embrace entropy and accelerate the fall, and given the fact I wouldn't trust anyone in any position to do so to lead us back to a Just Order after the fall, I'm on the side of defending Order.
And this is as someone who believes that, regarding vast swathes of the
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) with a new job at November 18, 2014 11:27 AM (kff5f)
239
94 It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence, to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: "And this, too, shall pass away."
My friend the logic professor once asked me to write him a program that would make everything he wrote true. I offered to make him one that inserted ", or maybe not" whenever the typed a period.
My friend the logic professor once asked me to write him a program that would make everything he wrote true. I offered to make him one that inserted ", or maybe not" whenever the typed a period.
Posted by: Anachronda at November 18, 2014 11:27 AM (sGtp+)
240
Sigh.
Once again for those few who still don't get it:
The GOP does not - I repeat NOT - have the 2/3rds of the Senate needed to impeach.
Y'all can yell and scream all you want but We. Don't. Have. The. Numbers.
Facts are inconvenient things sometimes.
Once again for those few who still don't get it:
The GOP does not - I repeat NOT - have the 2/3rds of the Senate needed to impeach.
Y'all can yell and scream all you want but We. Don't. Have. The. Numbers.
Facts are inconvenient things sometimes.
Posted by: Citizen X at November 18, 2014 11:27 AM (7ObY1)
241
Drew and Gabe convinced me. It's broken and it can't be fixed. That's usually the basis of a no-fault divorce. So we politely but forceably secede and establish for ourselves a government that represents our interests. Use the U. S. Constitution, nobody in D.C. is using it.
Posted by: Mr. Dave at November 18, 2014 11:27 AM (3/Oyf)
242
208 One of the first things that need to be done is for states to stand up and re-establish their sovereignty. Until that happens, DC will keep running roughshod over our rights.
The path back to Constitutional freedom resides within the individual states.
Posted by: Soona at November 18, 2014 11:20 AM (qaepl)
You are right. It's the only real recourse left to us. Getting Washington to fix Washington is silly, since Washington is the problem, and the ones who make the problem seem content. Of course, before they get there, not so much.
208 One of the first things that need to be done is for states to stand up and re-establish their sovereignty. Until that happens, DC will keep running roughshod over our rights.
The path back to Constitutional freedom resides within the individual states.
Posted by: Soona at November 18, 2014 11:20 AM (qaepl)
You are right. It's the only real recourse left to us. Getting Washington to fix Washington is silly, since Washington is the problem, and the ones who make the problem seem content. Of course, before they get there, not so much.
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 11:27 AM (5+mPY)
243
When you, Citizen, do not know who is making what will be treated as law and when you, Citizen, cannot affect directly who will be put into place to make those laws, then you stop being a Citizen and become a Subject.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 18, 2014 11:26 AM (mf5HN)
We've been subjects for quite some time now...
One nit - we've not everhad a direct hand in our representation (at the executive level, at least).
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 18, 2014 11:26 AM (mf5HN)
We've been subjects for quite some time now...
One nit - we've not everhad a direct hand in our representation (at the executive level, at least).
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 11:28 AM (fwARV)
244
No. Just. No.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 18, 2014 11:26 AM (mf5HN)
-----
Well. Said.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 18, 2014 11:26 AM (mf5HN)
-----
Well. Said.
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 11:28 AM (NaV4z)
245
Didn't Arkansas enact a law that was effective in diminishing the atractiveness of illegal immigration? If so, how can this be replicated?
Posted by: Blue Hen
Step One: Grow a spine.
Posted by: Blue Hen
Step One: Grow a spine.
Posted by: rickb223 at November 18, 2014 11:28 AM (w0a3q)
246
A professor at DePauw University (DU) apologized to students for being a white, middle-class, heterosexual man, claiming his silence in addressing racism and inclusion makes the issues inherently his fault.
Weasel Zippers
Ya know I used to have ok manners and only said fuck you rarely. But lately I am saying it all the time.
Oh and Fuck You professor
Weasel Zippers
Ya know I used to have ok manners and only said fuck you rarely. But lately I am saying it all the time.
Oh and Fuck You professor
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:28 AM (M0mf2)
247
Impeachment is a waste of time for all the reasons mentioned. But withholding funds and going to court are not.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:29 AM (M0mf2)
248
I'd like to note that the branch that should be aligned with the Conservatives to strike down all these usurpations is the Judicial Branch. That it has not and does not is a real problem. The court concerns itself way too much with the practicality of governing and not enough with Constitutional Fidelity, witness Stare Decisis.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:29 AM (evdj2)
249
There are probably not enough votes in the Senate to convict Obama if he were to be impeached by the House. That is apparently why the House members think impeachment will be a dead end and not worth pursuing.
The best place to stop this unconstitutional EO may be in the states. The states can refuse to recognize the legal validity of any work, residency or other permits or documents issued to illegal aliens pursuant to an unconstitutional amnesty EO. The states can then refuse to accept the illegal aliens' permits when offered as proof of legal residency for state jobs, driver's licenses, state-administered welfare benefits, enrollment in state colleges, etc.
At that point, the ball is in Obama's court. The most likely response would be for him to sue the states (like he sued AZ over its attempts to enforce immigration laws there). The states could then use Obama's own words against him. Obama, that noted "constitutional law expert" has repeatedly offered his opinion that the president does NOT have the constitutional authority to unilaterally amnesty large classes of illegal aliens. (And "Professor" Obama's opinion about this was correct).
Then the courts would have to decide whether Obama's EO was constitutional or not. That decision is likely to go against Obama. BTW, the DACA ("DREAMer") amnesty EO was challenged in federal district court by a group of ICE agents. The court ruled that the EO was unconstitutional, as a usurpation of congress' power. An appeals court reversed, but not on the merits; they reversed because they ruled that the ICE agents did not have standing. But lack of standing won't be an issue for the states, whose residents will clearly be harmed by Obama's EO (it will cost the states money, it will cost their legal residents jobs, it will lead to increased illegal immigration and thus more crime, more demands for services by the new illegals, etc.).
The states are probably our best defense against Obama's tyranny. Contact your state legislators and governors, and demand that they take a stand.
The best place to stop this unconstitutional EO may be in the states. The states can refuse to recognize the legal validity of any work, residency or other permits or documents issued to illegal aliens pursuant to an unconstitutional amnesty EO. The states can then refuse to accept the illegal aliens' permits when offered as proof of legal residency for state jobs, driver's licenses, state-administered welfare benefits, enrollment in state colleges, etc.
At that point, the ball is in Obama's court. The most likely response would be for him to sue the states (like he sued AZ over its attempts to enforce immigration laws there). The states could then use Obama's own words against him. Obama, that noted "constitutional law expert" has repeatedly offered his opinion that the president does NOT have the constitutional authority to unilaterally amnesty large classes of illegal aliens. (And "Professor" Obama's opinion about this was correct).
Then the courts would have to decide whether Obama's EO was constitutional or not. That decision is likely to go against Obama. BTW, the DACA ("DREAMer") amnesty EO was challenged in federal district court by a group of ICE agents. The court ruled that the EO was unconstitutional, as a usurpation of congress' power. An appeals court reversed, but not on the merits; they reversed because they ruled that the ICE agents did not have standing. But lack of standing won't be an issue for the states, whose residents will clearly be harmed by Obama's EO (it will cost the states money, it will cost their legal residents jobs, it will lead to increased illegal immigration and thus more crime, more demands for services by the new illegals, etc.).
The states are probably our best defense against Obama's tyranny. Contact your state legislators and governors, and demand that they take a stand.
Posted by: Senator Phil E. Buster at November 18, 2014 11:30 AM (2ruKl)
250
A professor at DePauw University (DU) apologized to students for being a white, middle-class, heterosexual man, claiming his silence in addressing racism and inclusion makes the issues inherently his fault.
Oh good Lord, what a pussy.
Oh good Lord, what a pussy.
Posted by: Insomniac at November 18, 2014 11:30 AM (DrWcr)
251
he GOP does not - I repeat NOT - have the 2/3rds of the Senate needed to impeach.
Y'all can yell and scream all you want but We. Don't. Have. The. Numbers.
Facts are inconvenient things sometimes.
Posted by: Citizen X at November 18, 2014 11:27 AM (7ObY1)
-----
Well.... the media needs to put pressure on the Senate Dems that the Executive has crossed the rubicon and for the sake of the Republic this despot needs to go.
ha
haha
HAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
**wipes maniacal laffter inducing tear from eye
Sorry... couldnt keep a straight face there....
Y'all can yell and scream all you want but We. Don't. Have. The. Numbers.
Facts are inconvenient things sometimes.
Posted by: Citizen X at November 18, 2014 11:27 AM (7ObY1)
-----
Well.... the media needs to put pressure on the Senate Dems that the Executive has crossed the rubicon and for the sake of the Republic this despot needs to go.
ha
haha
HAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
**wipes maniacal laffter inducing tear from eye
Sorry... couldnt keep a straight face there....
Posted by: fixerupper at November 18, 2014 11:31 AM (NaV4z)
252
The shutdown thing drives me nuts.
Democrats/media: The GOP is causing the country to default! Be afraid! Be VERY afraid!!
Republicans: There's no reason to default. You should prioritize debt service and social security.
Democrats/media: That's crazy! There's nothing in the Constitution that allows Executive to do that! Only Congress can pass spending bills!
GAO/CRS: Actually...
Democrats/media: SHUT UP!
GAO/CRS: Sorry.
Republicans: Fine. Here's a bill explicitly saying you can and should prioritize debt service and social security payments.
Democrats: We're not passing that, you wild-eyed extremists!
Media: ZOMG REPUBLICANS WANT THE COUNTRY TO DEFAULT!! THEY'RE NUTS!!
Democrats: Man those memorial barricades, 90-year-old vets are trying to use our parks!
Republicans: Looks like we lose again.
Democrats/media: The GOP is causing the country to default! Be afraid! Be VERY afraid!!
Republicans: There's no reason to default. You should prioritize debt service and social security.
Democrats/media: That's crazy! There's nothing in the Constitution that allows Executive to do that! Only Congress can pass spending bills!
GAO/CRS: Actually...
Democrats/media: SHUT UP!
GAO/CRS: Sorry.
Republicans: Fine. Here's a bill explicitly saying you can and should prioritize debt service and social security payments.
Democrats: We're not passing that, you wild-eyed extremists!
Media: ZOMG REPUBLICANS WANT THE COUNTRY TO DEFAULT!! THEY'RE NUTS!!
Democrats: Man those memorial barricades, 90-year-old vets are trying to use our parks!
Republicans: Looks like we lose again.
Posted by: TallDave at November 18, 2014 11:31 AM (/s1LA)
253
I just finished reading a blog post in the WaPo on this matter. The House and Senate can pass legislation declaring that a EO "should not have legal effect". According to the Congressional Research Office, less than 4 percent of presidential EOs have been altered by Congress.
LINK: http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhuy3d3
Posted by: mrp at November 18, 2014 11:26 AM (JBggj)
The issue becomes one of enforcement...
so the President does an EO to the people who WORK for him..
The Congress says... tut tut... you can't do that, and over rides the EO...
The President says... F you... do it anyway...
It then goes to the Courts... which will take YEARS to decide the issue.
Meanwhile, the EO is in effect... because the Congress cannot, and will not, hold anyone in the Administration liable for enforcing said order... they can't fire, they can't jail...
LINK: http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhuy3d3
Posted by: mrp at November 18, 2014 11:26 AM (JBggj)
The issue becomes one of enforcement...
so the President does an EO to the people who WORK for him..
The Congress says... tut tut... you can't do that, and over rides the EO...
The President says... F you... do it anyway...
It then goes to the Courts... which will take YEARS to decide the issue.
Meanwhile, the EO is in effect... because the Congress cannot, and will not, hold anyone in the Administration liable for enforcing said order... they can't fire, they can't jail...
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 11:31 AM (f0pWu)
254
Frankly, I was all set to disagree with Cooke...that I figured if the Chief Executive thought a law was unconstitutional he ought not be forced into enforcing it (the three branches are co-equal, and I don't believe SCOTUS ought to have sole domain over what is "constitutional."). So sure, fight fire with fire.
But then I saw Malor taking that position and I promptly changed my mind. When a guy who is wrong about a million different things has the same opinion as you, it's really time to re-evaluate your opinion.
But then I saw Malor taking that position and I promptly changed my mind. When a guy who is wrong about a million different things has the same opinion as you, it's really time to re-evaluate your opinion.
Posted by: @JohnTant at November 18, 2014 11:31 AM (PFy0L)
255
How about this. The next GOP president, I'm assuming in '16, uses the powers newly given to him/her by O to reverse all of Barry's overreaches, and then wins a 2nd term, and says to the Dems "we'll return to regular order if you sign this bill which specifically prohibits or circumscribes the EA capacity of future presidents". That's lots of things that have to go right, but it's the only way I see out of this morass we're in, thanks to the stupidity of half of the American voters. No, I don't apologize.
Posted by: pep at November 18, 2014 11:31 AM (YXmuI)
256
86 Probably, but -- Christmas would be even better. "No room at the inn, kindness toward strangers. Kid named Jesus....
...Single mother namedJulia Mary just trying to make ends meet...
...Single mother named
Posted by: Anachronda at November 18, 2014 11:31 AM (sGtp+)
257
That diamond heist guy in NY has already been arrested.
Apparently, not a super genius.
Good job at getting away from the scene, I guess.
Not so good job at not being photographed by surveillance. He didn't even make it a week. Probably wasn't even able to cash any of the diamonds out -- so probably couldn't even enjoy a week long spending spree.
He probably just hid in his apartment for a week with a bag of useless diamonds he couldn't order a pizza with.
Apparently, not a super genius.
Good job at getting away from the scene, I guess.
Not so good job at not being photographed by surveillance. He didn't even make it a week. Probably wasn't even able to cash any of the diamonds out -- so probably couldn't even enjoy a week long spending spree.
He probably just hid in his apartment for a week with a bag of useless diamonds he couldn't order a pizza with.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:32 AM (ZPrif)
258
New York News Links @dlnynews 1h
Arrest made in New York City diamond heist: NEW YORK, Nov. 18 (UPI) --An employee of a New York diamond distri... http://binged.it/11gsFph
Arrest made in New York City diamond heist: NEW YORK, Nov. 18 (UPI) --An employee of a New York diamond distri... http://binged.it/11gsFph
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 11:33 AM (ZPrif)
259
240 Sigh.
Once again for those few who still don't get it:
The GOP does not - I repeat NOT - have the 2/3rds of the Senate needed to impeach.
Y'all can yell and scream all you want but We. Don't. Have. The. Numbers.
Facts are inconvenient things sometimes.
Posted by: Citizen X
+1000
If we had 66+ Republican Senators, then we'd be having a different conversation.
What some TruCons are saying though is "WE NEED A FAILED IMPEACHMENT ATTEMPT WHERE WE PUBLICLY LOSE AND OBAMA BEATS US!"
Once again for those few who still don't get it:
The GOP does not - I repeat NOT - have the 2/3rds of the Senate needed to impeach.
Y'all can yell and scream all you want but We. Don't. Have. The. Numbers.
Facts are inconvenient things sometimes.
Posted by: Citizen X
+1000
If we had 66+ Republican Senators, then we'd be having a different conversation.
What some TruCons are saying though is "WE NEED A FAILED IMPEACHMENT ATTEMPT WHERE WE PUBLICLY LOSE AND OBAMA BEATS US!"
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:33 AM (Aow3m)
260
252 Posted by: TallDave at November 18, 2014 11:31 AM (/s1LA)
Stomps feet and cheers...
and Juan McCain is there grinning like a fucking 'tard isn't he?
Nice summary....
like- Reagan vetoed the budget the shutdown is all on him GIVE CONGRESS WHAT IT WANTS
vs
THE REPUBLICANS FORCED JUGEARS TO VETO THE BILL the shutdown is THEIR FAULT....
the game is rigged.
Stomps feet and cheers...
and Juan McCain is there grinning like a fucking 'tard isn't he?
Nice summary....
like- Reagan vetoed the budget the shutdown is all on him GIVE CONGRESS WHAT IT WANTS
vs
THE REPUBLICANS FORCED JUGEARS TO VETO THE BILL the shutdown is THEIR FAULT....
the game is rigged.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:33 AM (/4AZU)
261
240 The GOP does not - I repeat NOT - have the 2/3rds of the Senate needed to impeach.
It depends on what the meaning of "2/3" is.
It depends on what the meaning of "2/3" is.
Posted by: Anachronda, flirting with non-Euclidean geometries at November 18, 2014 11:34 AM (sGtp+)
262
>>Please give me the list of elected Democrats that are going to vote to remove the President from office, which would be a first in American history.
I doubt you'll get a single one.
>>There's all sort of alternate ways of dealing with this, like cutting off funds for the departments that would hand out green cards, etc.
>>The Left is clearly BEGGING Republicans to impeach Obama, it's their ultimate fantasy because they know it will be an epic failure on our part.
>>You want to see a dictator on steroids? Wait till you impeach him and the vote isn't even close.
Bingo. Defund specific areas of the budget that enable Obama's overreach.
I doubt you'll get a single one.
>>There's all sort of alternate ways of dealing with this, like cutting off funds for the departments that would hand out green cards, etc.
>>The Left is clearly BEGGING Republicans to impeach Obama, it's their ultimate fantasy because they know it will be an epic failure on our part.
>>You want to see a dictator on steroids? Wait till you impeach him and the vote isn't even close.
Bingo. Defund specific areas of the budget that enable Obama's overreach.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 18, 2014 11:35 AM (g1DWB)
263
259 Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:33 AM (Aow3m)
Right we'll sue Jackass in the courts that reid just packed for Obama undoing ~230 years of Filibuster precedent...
THAT is totes a great plan too!
Right we'll sue Jackass in the courts that reid just packed for Obama undoing ~230 years of Filibuster precedent...
THAT is totes a great plan too!
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:35 AM (/4AZU)
264
Do you really see ANYONE who could be elected right now... anyone high enough in the Republican Ranks to be elected President, who has the Moral Courage that George Washington displayed when he voluntarily gave up power?
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 11:17 AM (f0pWu)
No. George Washington gave up power (including Commander in Chief after the revolution)because he knew that the country did not want a monarchy type as president(having fought a monarchy fresh in his mind) and because he had another entire life that didn't involve politics or government.
We most likely will never elect another president who has private businesses, farms, etc. that he wants to go back to after a stint in the government. Our election system today is such that people wanting to get elected to any higher office MUST be professional politicians. That precludes them from having any life outside politics. Obama is a perfect example of that.
That includes Governors. Take for example, Rick Snyder of Michigan. He ran for governor of Michigan after having no experience at all in government, but a successful career as a venture capitalist and entreprenuer. He will finish out now 8 years as governor and if he were to run for president(unlikely), he would have been out of the private sector for almost a decade by the time he is elected. It is highly doubtful he would be elected.
Look at the guys who are being looked at being viable for 2016. If they are governors, they have been there for a long time and most have been in their state legislatures prior. Cruz has been in law practice since 1995 as a law clerk for the SC, then on to work in government.
Etc. Etc.
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 11:17 AM (f0pWu)
No. George Washington gave up power (including Commander in Chief after the revolution)because he knew that the country did not want a monarchy type as president(having fought a monarchy fresh in his mind) and because he had another entire life that didn't involve politics or government.
We most likely will never elect another president who has private businesses, farms, etc. that he wants to go back to after a stint in the government. Our election system today is such that people wanting to get elected to any higher office MUST be professional politicians. That precludes them from having any life outside politics. Obama is a perfect example of that.
That includes Governors. Take for example, Rick Snyder of Michigan. He ran for governor of Michigan after having no experience at all in government, but a successful career as a venture capitalist and entreprenuer. He will finish out now 8 years as governor and if he were to run for president(unlikely), he would have been out of the private sector for almost a decade by the time he is elected. It is highly doubtful he would be elected.
Look at the guys who are being looked at being viable for 2016. If they are governors, they have been there for a long time and most have been in their state legislatures prior. Cruz has been in law practice since 1995 as a law clerk for the SC, then on to work in government.
Etc. Etc.
Posted by: Jen the original at November 18, 2014 11:35 AM (hjTr7)
265
Fire at "Waste Water" company? What is that a shit and piss company?
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:35 AM (M0mf2)
266
If we want to wishcast, the next Republican Congress with a Republican President should do some court packing of their own. Legislatively expand the USSC to 24 members and put in our own. All as young as we can reasonably get, and set a mandatory retirement age of 65 for justices.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:36 AM (evdj2)
267
Why do conservatives fear a shutdown?
We won the last one (2013) regardless of what the media and RINOs would say.
We crushed the Dems in this midterm a year later.
Does anyone think a shutdown in early 2015 will be on ANY voters minds come Nov. 2016?
I sure don't.
SHUT THAT SHIT DOWN!
We won the last one (2013) regardless of what the media and RINOs would say.
We crushed the Dems in this midterm a year later.
Does anyone think a shutdown in early 2015 will be on ANY voters minds come Nov. 2016?
I sure don't.
SHUT THAT SHIT DOWN!
Posted by: Oscar Meyer at November 18, 2014 11:36 AM (+kafi)
268
What some TruCons are saying though is "WE NEED A FAILED IMPEACHMENT ATTEMPT WHERE WE PUBLICLY LOSE AND OBAMA BEATS US!"
So, pretty much indistinguishable from where we are anyway.
So, pretty much indistinguishable from where we are anyway.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:37 AM (evdj2)
269
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:33 AM (/4AZU)
Democrats: Whew that was close. We almost had to agree to slightly reduce the growth of government spending at a time when the deficit is 40% of spending and the nation's credit rating is being downgraded.
Democrats: Whew that was close. We almost had to agree to slightly reduce the growth of government spending at a time when the deficit is 40% of spending and the nation's credit rating is being downgraded.
Posted by: TallDave at November 18, 2014 11:37 AM (/s1LA)
270
We've been subjects for quite some time now...
One nit - we've not everhad a direct hand in our representation (at the executive level, at least).
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 11:28 AM (fwARV)
That's why I said that after shrieking about the delegation doctrine. The toxicity of administrative lawmaking, and spare me that they are making rules not laws, those rules are treated with the same or near same deference as laws, is that it removes even the possibility of a direct affect by the citizenry on those making the laws.
At least in theory if a Senator or Congressman casts a vote on a law and that vote is contrary to the desires of those he represents, those he represents can remove him at the next election. Administrative rulemaking destroys that. At best, at very very very best, a new executive will be elected* who will direct the agencies to change the rules.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh I'm so funny on purpose sometimes.
*Via indirect representation to show that I do, indeed, grok your point and am just flailing away regardless.
One nit - we've not everhad a direct hand in our representation (at the executive level, at least).
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 11:28 AM (fwARV)
That's why I said that after shrieking about the delegation doctrine. The toxicity of administrative lawmaking, and spare me that they are making rules not laws, those rules are treated with the same or near same deference as laws, is that it removes even the possibility of a direct affect by the citizenry on those making the laws.
At least in theory if a Senator or Congressman casts a vote on a law and that vote is contrary to the desires of those he represents, those he represents can remove him at the next election. Administrative rulemaking destroys that. At best, at very very very best, a new executive will be elected* who will direct the agencies to change the rules.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh I'm so funny on purpose sometimes.
*Via indirect representation to show that I do, indeed, grok your point and am just flailing away regardless.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 18, 2014 11:37 AM (mf5HN)
271
The issue becomes one of enforcement...
so the President does an EO to the people who WORK for him..
The Congress says... tut tut... you can't do that, and over rides the EO...
The President says... F you... do it anyway...
It then goes to the Courts... which will take YEARS to decide the issue.
=======
"The President says... F you... do it anyway...
"
Well, then. At that point, matters would come to a very clear constitutional question --- for a lot of people. If Congress overrides the EO, that will require a 2/3 vote. If the House and Senate Dems hang tough with a lame-duck president on that point, then they will pay in 2016.
so the President does an EO to the people who WORK for him..
The Congress says... tut tut... you can't do that, and over rides the EO...
The President says... F you... do it anyway...
It then goes to the Courts... which will take YEARS to decide the issue.
=======
"The President says... F you... do it anyway...
"
Well, then. At that point, matters would come to a very clear constitutional question --- for a lot of people. If Congress overrides the EO, that will require a 2/3 vote. If the House and Senate Dems hang tough with a lame-duck president on that point, then they will pay in 2016.
Posted by: mrp at November 18, 2014 11:37 AM (JBggj)
272
I just finished reading a blog post in the WaPo on this matter. The House and Senate can pass legislation declaring that a EO "should not have legal effect". According to the Congressional Research Office, less than 4 percent of presidential EOs have been altered by Congress.
LINK: http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhuy3d3
______________________________________
It would be a good thing for congress to do this, because then the states could point to it as further legal justification for refusing to recognize the legal validity of residency/work permits issued pursuant to Obama's unconstitutional EO.
But the states still need to act. They must not just roll over as they did for the DACA amnesty. They must stand up and say NO to this unconstitutional usurpation of the peoples' power. Because if they don't take a stand here, this shit will never stop.
LINK: http://preview.tinyurl.com/nhuy3d3
______________________________________
It would be a good thing for congress to do this, because then the states could point to it as further legal justification for refusing to recognize the legal validity of residency/work permits issued pursuant to Obama's unconstitutional EO.
But the states still need to act. They must not just roll over as they did for the DACA amnesty. They must stand up and say NO to this unconstitutional usurpation of the peoples' power. Because if they don't take a stand here, this shit will never stop.
Posted by: Senator Phil E. Buster at November 18, 2014 11:37 AM (2ruKl)
Posted by: Nip Sip at November 18, 2014 11:37 AM (0FSuD)
274
Due process and equal protection rights violated when Executive picks and chooses my peers. Any jury verdict that included the vote of praetorian citizens should be thrown out. These people are not my lawful peers. This is very very serious. Magna Carta serious.
Posted by: Mr. Practical at November 18, 2014 11:39 AM (NnCGN)
275
Super boned.
Posted by: that guy that always thinks we're boned at November 18, 2014 11:39 AM (evdj2)
276
269 Posted by: TallDave at November 18, 2014 11:37 AM (/s1LA)
We're pretty much doomed to be Weimar Germany because the GOP lacks the balls to stop the amnesty needed to elect the debauchers of the currency in the numbers needed to destroy all our wealth's value
Embrace the suck
We're pretty much doomed to be Weimar Germany because the GOP lacks the balls to stop the amnesty needed to elect the debauchers of the currency in the numbers needed to destroy all our wealth's value
Embrace the suck
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:39 AM (/4AZU)
277
*Via indirect representation to show that I do, indeed, grok your point and am just flailing away regardless.
posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 18, 2014 11:37 AM (mf5HN)
Yup. We're truly enfuckened. When one single individual can, without oversight or check, determine what is or is not permitted/mandatory, we no longer live in a republic.
posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 18, 2014 11:37 AM (mf5HN)
Yup. We're truly enfuckened. When one single individual can, without oversight or check, determine what is or is not permitted/mandatory, we no longer live in a republic.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 11:39 AM (fwARV)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 18, 2014 11:40 AM (mf5HN)
279
Only solution is hardcore prosecution of Obama admin officials up to and including Obama. To allow Democrats unlimited executive power while GOP presidents restrain themselves is equally suicidal. If we want to rein in executive overreach then we must severely punish those who do it.
Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at November 18, 2014 11:40 AM (bitPb)
280
That's bad but it can be dealt with without further damage to our system of liberty.
Bullshit.
HOW can it be dealt with? How do you identify the criminals that were illegally given documents? BULLSHIT.
Once the illegals are in and voting, no more republicans win national elections. The illegals will all be shipped to swing states to vote for the communist. But you and your pantywaist group of wannabe jackholes just keep saying "it can be fixed."
BULLSHIT.
Bullshit.
HOW can it be dealt with? How do you identify the criminals that were illegally given documents? BULLSHIT.
Once the illegals are in and voting, no more republicans win national elections. The illegals will all be shipped to swing states to vote for the communist. But you and your pantywaist group of wannabe jackholes just keep saying "it can be fixed."
BULLSHIT.
Posted by: GMan at November 18, 2014 11:40 AM (sxq57)
281
I hate to piss on everyone's fun. But the republic is d. e. a. d. dead.
All you're trying to do now is pull a few nails out of the coffin.
All you're trying to do now is pull a few nails out of the coffin.
Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:40 AM (V70Uh)
282
When one single individual can, without oversight or check, determine what is or is not permitted/mandatory, we no longer live in a republic.
He can't. He said so himself in 2013. And he taught constitutional law.
When one single individual can, without oversight or check, determine what is or is not permitted/mandatory, we no longer live in a republic.
He can't. He said so himself in 2013. And he taught constitutional law.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at November 18, 2014 11:40 AM (JtwS4)
283
We are not fucked. They are fucked if they do this without the consent of our elected reprsentatives in Congress.
Posted by: Mr. Practical at November 18, 2014 11:40 AM (NnCGN)
284
So, pretty much indistinguishable from where we are anyway.
Posted by: toby928(C)
Did you miss the last election?
Posted by: toby928(C)
Did you miss the last election?
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:41 AM (Aow3m)
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:42 AM (evdj2)
286
281 I hate to piss on everyone's fun. But the republic is d. e. a. d. dead.
All you're trying to do now is pull a few nails out of the coffin.
Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:40 AM (V70Uh)
All we need is a high-level Cleric to cast Resurrection.
All you're trying to do now is pull a few nails out of the coffin.
Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:40 AM (V70Uh)
All we need is a high-level Cleric to cast Resurrection.
Posted by: Insomniac at November 18, 2014 11:42 AM (DrWcr)
287
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 18, 2014 11:26 AM (mf5HN)
Beautifully put, my Queen!
Beautifully put, my Queen!
Posted by: Hrothgar at November 18, 2014 11:42 AM (vPh3W)
288
So we're just fucked at this point. Obama has proven that if the President can ignore all laws and refuses to prosecute himself or any of his loyal servants the media will embargo the whole thing and most of the public has no idea it's going on. The democrats are the aggressors and set the rules all we can do at this point is make them live by their own rules. So you wipe out the EPA with stroke of a pen, or eliminate the CAFE standards that are wrecking the auto industry. Get rid of Obama's illegal amnesty and start prosecuting industries and companies that hire those people. Who cares if some polling says hispanics don't like border security they're not going to vote for us anyway. Spend some real time and effort crushing the teachers union and become a champion of school choice. see how much of the black vote you can siphon off. If the GOP can get 20% of the black vote democrats lose anyway and the hispanics that love them some amnesty can fuck themselves and their illegal family members.
Posted by: Vote Lord Humungus 2016 at November 18, 2014 11:42 AM (HEa5q)
289
U.S. troops in Europe are ditching their camouflage uniforms in order to blend in more with the locals.
U.S. European Command has told troops to limit to the max extent possible wearing their uniforms off base, according to a directive released Nov. 10. Troops can wear their uniforms only while commuting to and from work in their personal vehicles, a rental car or while riding on a government bus.
In addition, all personnel should review individual social media account security and geo-location functions settings to ensure their profiles are not overly revealing, the directive states.
The directive is mandatory for all U.S. troops serving in Europe, said Air Force Lt. Col. David Westover, a EUCOM spokesman.
Commands have until Friday to comply.
This was released in Public so I will reprint it here. And I will say that the Directive we got here in the US was even worse. Maybe the one release in Europe was also, but I can only print what they printed. WE here in the USA were told to only wear Civilian Cloths to base.
Can you say Surrender. Now actually in the EU it makes alot more sense I will admit, but here in the USA it does NOT.
U.S. European Command has told troops to limit to the max extent possible wearing their uniforms off base, according to a directive released Nov. 10. Troops can wear their uniforms only while commuting to and from work in their personal vehicles, a rental car or while riding on a government bus.
In addition, all personnel should review individual social media account security and geo-location functions settings to ensure their profiles are not overly revealing, the directive states.
The directive is mandatory for all U.S. troops serving in Europe, said Air Force Lt. Col. David Westover, a EUCOM spokesman.
Commands have until Friday to comply.
This was released in Public so I will reprint it here. And I will say that the Directive we got here in the US was even worse. Maybe the one release in Europe was also, but I can only print what they printed. WE here in the USA were told to only wear Civilian Cloths to base.
Can you say Surrender. Now actually in the EU it makes alot more sense I will admit, but here in the USA it does NOT.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:42 AM (M0mf2)
290
It's hard to see how the solution to lawlessness is more lawlessness.
If it's "lawlessness" then why does it keep happening?
Evidently, it's not lawlessness.
Who do you trust to fix this?
If it's "lawlessness" then why does it keep happening?
Evidently, it's not lawlessness.
Who do you trust to fix this?
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at November 18, 2014 11:43 AM (IXrOn)
291
273 Cliff's notes.
We're fucked.
Posted by: Nip Sip at November 18, 2014 11:37 AM (0FSuD)
Yeah. So, we might as well "try" to actually do something about the Decline and Fall. Doing nothing besides being nice and hand wringing hasn't worked too well lately. Maybe a little snarling and breaking is in order.
We're fucked.
Posted by: Nip Sip at November 18, 2014 11:37 AM (0FSuD)
Yeah. So, we might as well "try" to actually do something about the Decline and Fall. Doing nothing besides being nice and hand wringing hasn't worked too well lately. Maybe a little snarling and breaking is in order.
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 11:43 AM (5+mPY)
292
Here is the problem as I see it. Cooke is right--on principles. However, this is exactly where the modern (i.e. since Wilson) Democrat party sees its advantage. It expects to violate the rules and skirt constitutionality. It expects Republicans to honor principles. What that leads to is Nuclear Options and Obama-style "Executive Action" when Democrats are in power, with no equivalent conduct when Republicans are running the show. Plus, even if Republicans do stay in bounds and don't do what the Dems did, the Democrats will not do the same when they return to power. So, for the Democrats, it's conduct without consequence. That has to be stopped, even if, for a time, we don't "play by the rules." The single best way we have to stop the misconduct is to not only threaten to do the same come 2015 and 2017, but to actually do it, at least once or twice to drive home the point that even the WaPo seems to get finally--that lawlessness begets lawlessness. Then and only then do we have a short at restoring order and not destroying the greatest country on Earth.
Posted by: Dave at November 18, 2014 11:43 AM (8uzdZ)
293
265 Fire at "Waste Water" company? What is that a shit and piss company?
Plumbers. *wink* *wink*
Plumbers. *wink* *wink*
Posted by: Anachronda, not related to G. Gordon Liddy at November 18, 2014 11:44 AM (sGtp+)
294
284 Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:41 AM (Aow3m)
are you missing that Fuckstick McGee is basically saying "fuck your election my pen is loaded"?
This is for all the marbles Obama is essentially saying "fuck you Congress doesn't matter...."
and Searchlight will filibuster to protect him and enable the idea "the minority should really set the Senate agenda"
Taking defunding, and impeachment off the table essentially means the GOP is telling the people who were DESPERATE Ogabe be stopped "fuck you your vote doesn't matter and the will of the majority of the districts of the nation don't matter either"...
but hey "we'll have great optics with Giggles kicking sand in our faces anyway"
//Poppin' Fresh
are you missing that Fuckstick McGee is basically saying "fuck your election my pen is loaded"?
This is for all the marbles Obama is essentially saying "fuck you Congress doesn't matter...."
and Searchlight will filibuster to protect him and enable the idea "the minority should really set the Senate agenda"
Taking defunding, and impeachment off the table essentially means the GOP is telling the people who were DESPERATE Ogabe be stopped "fuck you your vote doesn't matter and the will of the majority of the districts of the nation don't matter either"...
but hey "we'll have great optics with Giggles kicking sand in our faces anyway"
//Poppin' Fresh
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:44 AM (/4AZU)
295
Cliff's notes.
We're fucked.
Hashtag: #WASTF
It's only thanks to the weakness of the Repumpkins and their strange, inexplicable refusal to protect and defend our Constitution from domestic enemies.
We're fucked.
Hashtag: #WASTF
It's only thanks to the weakness of the Repumpkins and their strange, inexplicable refusal to protect and defend our Constitution from domestic enemies.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Curmudgeon Extraordinaire at November 18, 2014 11:44 AM (0HooB)
296
Oh they are just poor proles. Bullshit. They get all the protection afforded citizens. They can coalesce into a potent force legally able to affect the lives all of us. And we had no say in the matter.
Posted by: Mr. Practical at November 18, 2014 11:45 AM (NnCGN)
297
It expects Republicans to honor principles. What that leads to is Nuclear Options and Obama-style "Executive Action" when Democrats are in power, with no equivalent conduct when Republicans are running the show.
Prosecuting and jailing members of the former junta is well within the law so we do not have to be lawless to deter future lawlessness.
Prosecuting and jailing members of the former junta is well within the law so we do not have to be lawless to deter future lawlessness.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:45 AM (evdj2)
298
289 Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:42 AM (M0mf2)
It makes perfect sense if your President is an operative of the Muslim Brotherhood
It makes perfect sense if your President is an operative of the Muslim Brotherhood
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:45 AM (/4AZU)
Posted by: T. Jeff at November 18, 2014 11:45 AM (/Ho8c)
300
It's only thanks to the weakness of the Repumpkins and their strange, inexplicable refusal to protect and defend our Constitution from domestic enemies.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Curmudgeon Extraordinaire at November 18, 2014 11:44 AM (0HooB)
I don't think it's inexplicable. With a few notable exceptions, they want to have Teh Power and are just waiting and hoping for their turn.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Curmudgeon Extraordinaire at November 18, 2014 11:44 AM (0HooB)
I don't think it's inexplicable. With a few notable exceptions, they want to have Teh Power and are just waiting and hoping for their turn.
Posted by: Insomniac at November 18, 2014 11:45 AM (DrWcr)
Posted by: Bandersnatch at November 18, 2014 11:46 AM (JtwS4)
302
The Ferguson Thug-testers are having an "Injustice Carnival." YAY! I love carnivals.
Hope the line for the Rayciss Coaster isn't too long. If it is, I'll kill time playing Whack-a-Whitey till the Cracka-Go-Round is free.
Hope the line for the Rayciss Coaster isn't too long. If it is, I'll kill time playing Whack-a-Whitey till the Cracka-Go-Round is free.
Posted by: Citizen X at November 18, 2014 11:46 AM (7ObY1)
303
So, you Tennessean, Toby?
No, just a reader of Insty. As a Native Texan and Alabama Alumn, I'm twice as insufferable as Tennesseans.
No, just a reader of Insty. As a Native Texan and Alabama Alumn, I'm twice as insufferable as Tennesseans.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:47 AM (evdj2)
304
Ok, why wait. Instead of doing by some future executive fiat, do it now. Use the power of transactional immunity. Pick a series of burdensome laws, the Clean Air Act, Corporate Taxes, the 941 ITs withholding filings, the Obamacare Medical device tax, the Cadillac place tax, etc - and provide transactional immunity due to Congressional investigations upon anyone who submits an evidentiary letter.
Chicago rules, one of your to the hospital, one of his to,the morgue.
Chicago rules, one of your to the hospital, one of his to,the morgue.
Posted by: Jean at November 18, 2014 11:47 AM (TETYm)
305
If we had 66+ Republican Senators, then we'd be having a different conversation.
What some TruCons are saying though is "WE NEED A FAILED IMPEACHMENT ATTEMPT WHERE WE PUBLICLY LOSE AND OBAMA BEATS US!"
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:33 AM (Aow3m)
What would happen if you held an impeachment vote in the Senate, and about a dozen Donks failed to show up, for various and sundry reasons?
What some TruCons are saying though is "WE NEED A FAILED IMPEACHMENT ATTEMPT WHERE WE PUBLICLY LOSE AND OBAMA BEATS US!"
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:33 AM (Aow3m)
What would happen if you held an impeachment vote in the Senate, and about a dozen Donks failed to show up, for various and sundry reasons?
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at November 18, 2014 11:47 AM (7MWCL)
306
Prosecuting and jailing members of the former junta
is well within the law so we do not have to be lawless to deter future
lawlessness.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:45 AM
==========
First week of January, 2017 ...
is well within the law so we do not have to be lawless to deter future
lawlessness.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:45 AM
==========
First week of January, 2017 ...
Posted by: mrp at November 18, 2014 11:47 AM (JBggj)
307
285
My point being that "Obama always wins" is just not true, he just got an epic smack down.
Where I differ from a lot of people here is I think Obama is the one that's slitting his throat and his fellow Democrats.
This action will mean NOTHING, a group of illegals that were never going to be rounded up anyway under Obama will basically have the status quo. Their not going to be voting or become citizens.
Meanwhile, the country will be FUMING at what he did and it will look like the actions of a 3rd world dictator. I cant wait to hear Hillary take a stand on it.
Obama and the Democrats are FU#king themselves over a middle finger gesture that will destroy any chance of a real Amnesty deal.
My point being that "Obama always wins" is just not true, he just got an epic smack down.
Where I differ from a lot of people here is I think Obama is the one that's slitting his throat and his fellow Democrats.
This action will mean NOTHING, a group of illegals that were never going to be rounded up anyway under Obama will basically have the status quo. Their not going to be voting or become citizens.
Meanwhile, the country will be FUMING at what he did and it will look like the actions of a 3rd world dictator. I cant wait to hear Hillary take a stand on it.
Obama and the Democrats are FU#king themselves over a middle finger gesture that will destroy any chance of a real Amnesty deal.
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:47 AM (Aow3m)
308
298 289 Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:42 AM (M0mf2)
It makes perfect sense if your President is an operative of the Muslim Brotherhood
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:45 AM (/4AZU)
And undoubtedly expecting an exemption from Sharia law after the takeover, because "special snowflake".
It makes perfect sense if your President is an operative of the Muslim Brotherhood
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:45 AM (/4AZU)
And undoubtedly expecting an exemption from Sharia law after the takeover, because "special snowflake".
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 11:47 AM (5+mPY)
309
The states are probably our best defense against Obama's tyranny. Contact your state legislators and governors, and demand that they take a stand.
Posted by: Senator Phil E. Buster at November 18, 2014 11:30 AM (2ruKl)
----------------------
It's one of the reasons that I'm so disappointed with Rick Perry. This last summer gave him an amazing opportunity to stand up against the fed, lead the nation, and he refused to do it. And so goes my faith in Perry to be a good president.
Posted by: Senator Phil E. Buster at November 18, 2014 11:30 AM (2ruKl)
----------------------
It's one of the reasons that I'm so disappointed with Rick Perry. This last summer gave him an amazing opportunity to stand up against the fed, lead the nation, and he refused to do it. And so goes my faith in Perry to be a good president.
Posted by: Soona at November 18, 2014 11:48 AM (qaepl)
310
305 Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at November 18, 2014 11:47 AM (7MWCL)
They'd have to be "out of office" otherwise Impeachment as written is a total quorum vote yes or no to the charges by the House....
if we're "following that old document"
Otherwise why not play "anything goes" like Giggles?
They'd have to be "out of office" otherwise Impeachment as written is a total quorum vote yes or no to the charges by the House....
if we're "following that old document"
Otherwise why not play "anything goes" like Giggles?
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:48 AM (/4AZU)
311
This action will mean NOTHING, a group of illegals that were never going to be rounded up anyway under Obama will basically have the status quo. Their not going to be voting or become citizens.
HAHAHAHA you're an idiot. That's the end fucking game. They WILL be given the ability to vote by 2016.
HAHAHAHA you're an idiot. That's the end fucking game. They WILL be given the ability to vote by 2016.
Posted by: GMan at November 18, 2014 11:49 AM (sxq57)
312
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:33 AM (Aow3m)
Hrothgar's Rule: You'd need at least 90 R Senators in the Senate to get an impeachment through because 25% of them would still be McCains, McConnells, Grahams, Collins, etc. when the chips were down!
Hrothgar's Rule: You'd need at least 90 R Senators in the Senate to get an impeachment through because 25% of them would still be McCains, McConnells, Grahams, Collins, etc. when the chips were down!
Posted by: Hrothgar at November 18, 2014 11:50 AM (vPh3W)
313
This doesn't seem at all difficult to me. It is a crisis with potential effects worse than any past war. When the SHTF, you have to react. Or lie down and die.
Posted by: MrScribbler at November 18, 2014 10:35 AM (PoKIA)
Well said.
We bitch about the Courts ignoring clear constitutional intent. Now we have a congress ignoring clear constitutional intent.
The man broke the law.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
This doesn't seem at all difficult to me. It is a crisis with potential effects worse than any past war. When the SHTF, you have to react. Or lie down and die.
Posted by: MrScribbler at November 18, 2014 10:35 AM (PoKIA)
Well said.
We bitch about the Courts ignoring clear constitutional intent. Now we have a congress ignoring clear constitutional intent.
The man broke the law.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
Posted by: D-Lamp at November 18, 2014 11:50 AM (txvbW)
314
HAHAHAHA you're an idiot. That's the end fucking game. They WILL be given the ability to vote by 2016.
Posted by: GMan at November 18, 2014 11:49 AM
========
Not anymore than they are now. The states control elections.
Posted by: GMan at November 18, 2014 11:49 AM
========
Not anymore than they are now. The states control elections.
Posted by: mrp at November 18, 2014 11:51 AM (JBggj)
315
HAHAHAHA you're an idiot. That's the end fucking game. They WILL be given the ability to vote by 2016.
Posted by: GMan at November 18, 2014 11:49 AM (sxq57)
I've read that the plan is to issue Social Security cards.
In other words, a voter ID card.
Posted by: GMan at November 18, 2014 11:49 AM (sxq57)
I've read that the plan is to issue Social Security cards.
In other words, a voter ID card.
Posted by: jwb7605 at November 18, 2014 11:51 AM (ZALPg)
316
If it's "lawlessness" then why does it keep happening?
Evidently, it's not lawlessness.
Who do you trust to fix this?
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at November 18, 2014 11:43 AM (IXrOn)
That's what the fight is about.
Those idiotic stupid heads up their asses TruCon mouth breathing window lickers look at the Constitution and say "Hey. This thingy? You know the rule book for how this government runs? Yeah, it's got all kinds of parts about how one branch stops another and we should do that. Since that's what the rules are and breaking the rules to stop breaking the rules sounds kinda crazypants and leading to bad results to us."
The wise, calm, clear headed, ever so reasonable and rational Republicans who comprehend reality respond "UR teh crazeee. We have to have every single thing in perfect possible place before we could even think about, you know, acting in accordance with the principles that we supposedly support (but c'mon fighting for principles is soooo unrealistic *eyeroll*). So, see, it's totes fine to kinda sorta ignore that whole breaking the Constitution thingy because we can't get elected otherwise. And you want us to get elected right? I mean this time when we get elected we will take you to dinner at that place you like and go to that chick flick that you want to see and so won't do that thing in your mouth. Because we're the grown ups."
Evidently, it's not lawlessness.
Who do you trust to fix this?
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at November 18, 2014 11:43 AM (IXrOn)
That's what the fight is about.
Those idiotic stupid heads up their asses TruCon mouth breathing window lickers look at the Constitution and say "Hey. This thingy? You know the rule book for how this government runs? Yeah, it's got all kinds of parts about how one branch stops another and we should do that. Since that's what the rules are and breaking the rules to stop breaking the rules sounds kinda crazypants and leading to bad results to us."
The wise, calm, clear headed, ever so reasonable and rational Republicans who comprehend reality respond "UR teh crazeee. We have to have every single thing in perfect possible place before we could even think about, you know, acting in accordance with the principles that we supposedly support (but c'mon fighting for principles is soooo unrealistic *eyeroll*). So, see, it's totes fine to kinda sorta ignore that whole breaking the Constitution thingy because we can't get elected otherwise. And you want us to get elected right? I mean this time when we get elected we will take you to dinner at that place you like and go to that chick flick that you want to see and so won't do that thing in your mouth. Because we're the grown ups."
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 18, 2014 11:51 AM (mf5HN)
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 11:51 AM (fwARV)
318
Ah, so.
Posted by: T. Jeff at November 18, 2014 11:51 AM (/Ho8c)
319
Can you say Surrender. Now actually in the EU it makes alot more sense I will admit, but here in the USA it does NOT.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:42 AM (M0mf2)
Yup.... we had the same type of orders back in the CARTER days... and that was even in CONUS.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 18, 2014 11:42 AM (M0mf2)
Yup.... we had the same type of orders back in the CARTER days... and that was even in CONUS.
Posted by: Romeo13 at November 18, 2014 11:52 AM (f0pWu)
320
ot anymore than they are now. The states control elections.
And when Obama says "Fuck you States, these guys votes need to count".
Then what happens?
And when Obama says "Fuck you States, these guys votes need to count".
Then what happens?
Posted by: GMan at November 18, 2014 11:52 AM (sxq57)
321
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
Posted by: D-Lamp at November 18, 2014 11:50 AM (tx
Which translates as"Italy makes shitty cars".
Posted by: D-Lamp at November 18, 2014 11:50 AM (tx
Which translates as"Italy makes shitty cars".
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 11:52 AM (5+mPY)
322
307 Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:47 AM (Aow3m)
They already vote Jimbo...the Washinton Post was bragging on it two weeks ago....
Hell Obama may have been re-elected by illegals voting...in Ohio the Somalis were bussed from Columbus to Cincy....
http://tinyurl.com/mqqbuw7
6.7% of illegals already vote...
let's keep adding raw numbers where even if the % stays the same their share of the vote goes up....
They already vote Jimbo...the Washinton Post was bragging on it two weeks ago....
Hell Obama may have been re-elected by illegals voting...in Ohio the Somalis were bussed from Columbus to Cincy....
http://tinyurl.com/mqqbuw7
6.7% of illegals already vote...
let's keep adding raw numbers where even if the % stays the same their share of the vote goes up....
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:52 AM (/4AZU)
323
>>We bitch about the Courts ignoring clear constitutional intent. Now we have a congress ignoring clear constitutional intent.
Accept nothing has happened yet.
A whole lot of political blustering but no actual movement.
Accept nothing has happened yet.
A whole lot of political blustering but no actual movement.
Posted by: JackStraw at November 18, 2014 11:52 AM (g1DWB)
324
We don't need to override a veto to use the power of the purse.
Pass funding bills we want, and not anything we don't. Pass spending bills piece-meal. Fund those agencies we want funded, don't fund (or attach strings to the funding of) agencies we don't.
When the Parks Service gets shut down, point out we passed a bill funding the Parks Service, and that TFG shut it down.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) with a new job at November 18, 2014 11:02 AM (kff5f)
I think it is naive to believe that Dumb Ass won't order treasury to keep printing checks for defunded agencies.
Why on earth do you think he would recognize a piece of paper as binding on him?
How many Divisions does Congress have?
Pass funding bills we want, and not anything we don't. Pass spending bills piece-meal. Fund those agencies we want funded, don't fund (or attach strings to the funding of) agencies we don't.
When the Parks Service gets shut down, point out we passed a bill funding the Parks Service, and that TFG shut it down.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) with a new job at November 18, 2014 11:02 AM (kff5f)
I think it is naive to believe that Dumb Ass won't order treasury to keep printing checks for defunded agencies.
Why on earth do you think he would recognize a piece of paper as binding on him?
How many Divisions does Congress have?
Posted by: D-Lamp at November 18, 2014 11:53 AM (txvbW)
325
HAHAHAHA you're an idiot. That's the end fucking game. They WILL be given the ability to vote by 2016.
Posted by: GMan
By who?
The President can't make 20 million illegals voting citizens without Congress in 2 years.
What's being discussed here is basically the laws will not be enforced selectively.
It's going to get struck down by the Courts and will have been a meaningless gesture. Mark my words.
If Obama could have made 20 million citizens with a pen stroke he would have done it on Day 1 when he was sworn in and never had to leave the golf course for another pesky election.
Posted by: GMan
By who?
The President can't make 20 million illegals voting citizens without Congress in 2 years.
What's being discussed here is basically the laws will not be enforced selectively.
It's going to get struck down by the Courts and will have been a meaningless gesture. Mark my words.
If Obama could have made 20 million citizens with a pen stroke he would have done it on Day 1 when he was sworn in and never had to leave the golf course for another pesky election.
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:53 AM (Aow3m)
326
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
So 2/3's of those present to convict.
So 2/3's of those present to convict.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:53 AM (evdj2)
327
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at November 18, 2014 11:53 AM (JtwS4)
328
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at November 18, 2014 11:51 AM (mf5HN)
Bunk
Bunk
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 11:53 AM (fwARV)
329
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:47 AM (Aow3m)
If you think Obama can EO millions of illegals into the country but can't EO them into voters, you have missed some courses in progressive theory. They've got over 18 months to set this in motion with a rabid racist DoJ to enforce the New & Improved voter registration "rules"!
If you think Obama can EO millions of illegals into the country but can't EO them into voters, you have missed some courses in progressive theory. They've got over 18 months to set this in motion with a rabid racist DoJ to enforce the New & Improved voter registration "rules"!
Posted by: Hrothgar at November 18, 2014 11:54 AM (vPh3W)
330
Suggestion -
A letter from the Republican Senators and Congressmen to the American public, stating unequivocally that on Inauguration Day 2016 they will vote on revocation of each and every Obama executive order issued between now and Inauguration Day, except for those which were submitted to Congress before they were signed, and received a majority of the votes in a sense of the House and a sense of the Senate resolution.
A letter from the Republican Senators and Congressmen to the American public, stating unequivocally that on Inauguration Day 2016 they will vote on revocation of each and every Obama executive order issued between now and Inauguration Day, except for those which were submitted to Congress before they were signed, and received a majority of the votes in a sense of the House and a sense of the Senate resolution.
Posted by: Z as in Jersey (now in Virginia) at November 18, 2014 11:54 AM (RjkRJ)
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:54 AM (/4AZU)
332
Rule of law?
Mmm, way past that now.
ACA was passed without a true vote. IT was passed without actually being a written document. The infamous 2800 pages weren't actually collated until after the vote. No where near what a rule of law demands.
Further as most of us 'dummies' on the Right know, that disastrous bill allowed for the bureaucrats to create another 10k pages of rules and regs. Rule of law?
We're not a nation of laws, and no restraint by a GOP pres is going to do a damned thing about that.
The bind of the ethical is that they will never see any day without the unjust winning. The ratcheting the Left has engaged in for the past 100 years will continue if our cause is to be held to a different standard.
A suicidal compact it is then, gents.
Mmm, way past that now.
ACA was passed without a true vote. IT was passed without actually being a written document. The infamous 2800 pages weren't actually collated until after the vote. No where near what a rule of law demands.
Further as most of us 'dummies' on the Right know, that disastrous bill allowed for the bureaucrats to create another 10k pages of rules and regs. Rule of law?
We're not a nation of laws, and no restraint by a GOP pres is going to do a damned thing about that.
The bind of the ethical is that they will never see any day without the unjust winning. The ratcheting the Left has engaged in for the past 100 years will continue if our cause is to be held to a different standard.
A suicidal compact it is then, gents.
Posted by: weft cut-loop, now in Dark Chunks! at November 18, 2014 11:54 AM (/lTUs)
333
On the third hand, we have once again fallen into what the R's should or shouldn't do, completely forgetting they not so secretly want the executive amnesty so they can satisfy big business and have the issue at the same time.
They will give nothing and like it.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 18, 2014 11:11 AM (1nB6R)
And this is what many of us suspect is happening.
They will give nothing and like it.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 18, 2014 11:11 AM (1nB6R)
And this is what many of us suspect is happening.
Posted by: D-Lamp at November 18, 2014 11:54 AM (txvbW)
334
Talking about standing up for the Constitution is pretty much moot when that document has been trampled into the mud of the Rio Grande, when standing law is ignored, when the express and repeatedly-stated will of the people is rejected and openly mocked, and when bureaucrats of a quantity and number that would have horrified the Founding Fathers (or the regime of Louis XVI) line their pockets while legislating by fiat and main force, when the courts rule that no citizen has the "standing" to legally challenge his government on abusing his religion, his rights to self-defense and property, and the future welfare of his children.
When the mechanisms of the Constitution are ignored, its checks, balances, obligations and protections thrown away, responding by anything other than extraordinary measures is the act of foolish, frightened old men.
Enter the leadership of the GOP...
When the mechanisms of the Constitution are ignored, its checks, balances, obligations and protections thrown away, responding by anything other than extraordinary measures is the act of foolish, frightened old men.
Enter the leadership of the GOP...
Posted by: Veteran's Administration at November 18, 2014 11:55 AM (XO6WW)
335
I am calling for restraint.
Posted by: Preznit Urkel X at November 18, 2014 11:55 AM (32Ze2)
336
to harass our people and eat out their substance.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at November 18, 2014 11:53 AM (JtwS4)
Eat out their what? Oh. Right. I mistook this for the ONT for a second.
Carry on.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at November 18, 2014 11:53 AM (JtwS4)
Eat out their what? Oh. Right. I mistook this for the ONT for a second.
Carry on.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 11:55 AM (fwARV)
337
And when Obama says "Fuck you States, these guys votes need to count".
Then what happens?
Posted by: GMan at November 18, 2014 11:52 AM
=========
The states will say "See you in court, buddy" and do what they did in elections prior, then Barry leaves office in 2017 and the case goes bye-bye.
Then what happens?
Posted by: GMan at November 18, 2014 11:52 AM
=========
The states will say "See you in court, buddy" and do what they did in elections prior, then Barry leaves office in 2017 and the case goes bye-bye.
Posted by: mrp at November 18, 2014 11:55 AM (JBggj)
338
322 307 Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:47 AM (Aow3m)
They already vote Jimbo...the Washinton Post was bragging on it two weeks ago....
Hell Obama may have been re-elected by illegals voting...in Ohio the Somalis were bussed from Columbus to Cincy....
http://tinyurl.com/mqqbuw7
6.7% of illegals already vote...
let's keep adding raw numbers where even if the % stays the same their share of the vote goes up....
Posted by: Sven S Blade
They vote ILLEGALLY.
There's a big difference.
And this is where the states can step up to the plate. EVERY state with a Republican Governor or Legislature needs to step up on Voter ID laws.
They already vote Jimbo...the Washinton Post was bragging on it two weeks ago....
Hell Obama may have been re-elected by illegals voting...in Ohio the Somalis were bussed from Columbus to Cincy....
http://tinyurl.com/mqqbuw7
6.7% of illegals already vote...
let's keep adding raw numbers where even if the % stays the same their share of the vote goes up....
Posted by: Sven S Blade
They vote ILLEGALLY.
There's a big difference.
And this is where the states can step up to the plate. EVERY state with a Republican Governor or Legislature needs to step up on Voter ID laws.
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:55 AM (Aow3m)
339
I told you Barbak Obama would be a transformational leader. Was I right?
Posted by: Colic Powell at November 18, 2014 11:56 AM (SaMXZ)
340
Off VA sock...
Posted by: Richard McEnroe at November 18, 2014 11:56 AM (XO6WW)
Posted by: USMC 8541 at November 18, 2014 11:56 AM (xGZ+b)
342
I've had a sort of RINOish thought. Suppose we were to pass an immigration bill that required voter ID. Barky can probably get what he wants on immigration so were giving up nothing and maybe we get voter ID. I know there would be court challenges but some voter ID laws have ben upheld and further we could make the bill non-severable. Problem is barky won't wait until the new term to act.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at November 18, 2014 11:57 AM (XUKZU)
343
338 Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:55 AM (Aow3m)
Obama fights tooth and nail against Voter ID and Democrat judges grant Holder stays on the ID laws without fail....
It's touching you keep using the word "illegal" around Obama and forget the ONLY legal recourse against an out of control President by design is the "I" word you so hate....
the GOP leadership and "soft Republicans" simply do not want to have to make their case on Obama's lawlessness b/c the media will call them names as opposed to now when the media calls them names.
Obama fights tooth and nail against Voter ID and Democrat judges grant Holder stays on the ID laws without fail....
It's touching you keep using the word "illegal" around Obama and forget the ONLY legal recourse against an out of control President by design is the "I" word you so hate....
the GOP leadership and "soft Republicans" simply do not want to have to make their case on Obama's lawlessness b/c the media will call them names as opposed to now when the media calls them names.
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:58 AM (/4AZU)
344
I'm in the mood for some Old Testament Smiting.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:58 AM (evdj2)
345
"What would happen if you held an impeachment vote in the Senate, and about a dozen Donks failed to show up, for various and sundry reasons?"
Wouldn't happen as dumb as they are even the blacks would notice that betrayal. No monolithic black vote, no democrat party. Nope the Dems are on the Obama train until the end of the line.
Wouldn't happen as dumb as they are even the blacks would notice that betrayal. No monolithic black vote, no democrat party. Nope the Dems are on the Obama train until the end of the line.
Posted by: Vote Lord Humungus 2016 at November 18, 2014 11:58 AM (HEa5q)
346
Yes, Obama can legalize millions of illegal immigrants but only temporarily.
Have you ever heard of the phrase "permanent pro-active lifetime pardon"?
Have you ever heard of the phrase "permanent pro-active lifetime pardon"?
Posted by: Teh SCOAMT at November 18, 2014 11:58 AM (cL79m)
347
Re: Gabe's point about the unlikelihood of impeachment and its present-day utility. It is another argument on behalf of repealing the 17th Amendment and re-establishing state legislatures for Senate appointments and removals, ala Levin's Liberty Amendments. For example, if a President becomes a SCOAMF and Senators are reluctant to impeach, it gives the people the power to put someone in office who will. And the state legislatures would also serve as brakes for the wild impeachment theories.
Impeachment would always be in play and the "it won't happen" won't stand in the way of nationwide debate on the grounds for impeachment. Panacea? No. But better than what we have now.
Impeachment would always be in play and the "it won't happen" won't stand in the way of nationwide debate on the grounds for impeachment. Panacea? No. But better than what we have now.
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at November 18, 2014 11:59 AM (lJLML)
348
The bind of the ethical is that they will never see any day without the unjust winning. The ratcheting the Left has engaged in for the past 100 years will continue if our cause is to be held to a different standard.
Posted by: weft cut-loop, now in Dark Chunks! at November 18, 2014 11:54 AM (/lTUs)
I think that's why I'm leaning to the 'fire with fire' side.
We've passed the point where a majority of people WANT to see things ratcheted back. Playing by the rules (all of them, all the time) is simply not working.
We see the exact same phenomena in the Middle East. The US is held to the impossible standards of 'no civilian casualties ever' and 'civilian' is defined rather... broadly. The terrorists, on the other hand, have no such binding standard.
It's the same here.
Posted by: weft cut-loop, now in Dark Chunks! at November 18, 2014 11:54 AM (/lTUs)
I think that's why I'm leaning to the 'fire with fire' side.
We've passed the point where a majority of people WANT to see things ratcheted back. Playing by the rules (all of them, all the time) is simply not working.
We see the exact same phenomena in the Middle East. The US is held to the impossible standards of 'no civilian casualties ever' and 'civilian' is defined rather... broadly. The terrorists, on the other hand, have no such binding standard.
It's the same here.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 11:59 AM (fwARV)
349
What would happen if you held an impeachment vote in the Senate, and about a dozen Donks failed to show up, for various and sundry reasons?
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at November 18, 2014 11:47 AM (7MWCL)
Unless their absence is due to sudden and terminal cases of death, it wouldn't matter because the 2/3rds required to convict is based on the number of duly-elected Senators.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at November 18, 2014 11:47 AM (7MWCL)
Unless their absence is due to sudden and terminal cases of death, it wouldn't matter because the 2/3rds required to convict is based on the number of duly-elected Senators.
Posted by: steveegg at November 18, 2014 12:00 PM (cL79m)
350
Hope the line for the Rayciss Coaster isn't too long. If it is, I'll kill time playing Whack-a-Whitey till the Cracka-Go-Round is free.
-
I'll take my best girl through the Tunnel of Hate.
Hope the line for the Rayciss Coaster isn't too long. If it is, I'll kill time playing Whack-a-Whitey till the Cracka-Go-Round is free.
-
I'll take my best girl through the Tunnel of Hate.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at November 18, 2014 12:01 PM (XUKZU)
351
Further elaboration: remove and replace the reluctant during their terms.
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at November 18, 2014 12:01 PM (lJLML)
Posted by: Costanza Defense at November 18, 2014 12:01 PM (ZPrif)
353
I've had every promise broken
There's anger in my heart
There's anger in my heart
Posted by: ginaswo channeling That Lyrics Guy at November 18, 2014 12:02 PM (+X1qa)
354
Have you ever heard of the phrase "permanent pro-active lifetime pardon"?
Posted by: Teh SCOAMT at November 18, 2014 11:58 AM (cL79m)
It comes with a built- in poop smell, extra feature.
Have you ever heard of the phrase "permanent pro-active lifetime pardon"?
Posted by: Teh SCOAMT at November 18, 2014 11:58 AM (cL79m)
It comes with a built- in poop smell, extra feature.
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 12:02 PM (5+mPY)
355
Trouble is, the only way to revert back to some semblance of the Rule of Law is to make some unilateral moves as we know the Democrats will fight tooth and nail on everything.
I don't think some people understand what's happened here.
It's not so much been that the Presidency has been shown to be capable of lawlessness or imperial rule it's that Congress has been shown to be powerless to stop him.
Is it because of the men in charge or is it a fundamental flaw in the system that the President has these powers yet Congress cannot supply a counterbalance.
Yes, yes I understand about the power of the purse (but the President can do many things to bypass whatever is done) and perhaps it might work but it's a suicidal act guaranteed to upset financial and political spheres.
Some way needs to be resolved that can actually rein in Presidential overreach while maintaining the fabric of government.
And as the Drew says, is anybody really convinced that say someone like Mitt Romney would reverse en mass Obama's EO's?
Or would he decide it's better to just try to get along?
I think we all know the answer.
I don't think some people understand what's happened here.
It's not so much been that the Presidency has been shown to be capable of lawlessness or imperial rule it's that Congress has been shown to be powerless to stop him.
Is it because of the men in charge or is it a fundamental flaw in the system that the President has these powers yet Congress cannot supply a counterbalance.
Yes, yes I understand about the power of the purse (but the President can do many things to bypass whatever is done) and perhaps it might work but it's a suicidal act guaranteed to upset financial and political spheres.
Some way needs to be resolved that can actually rein in Presidential overreach while maintaining the fabric of government.
And as the Drew says, is anybody really convinced that say someone like Mitt Romney would reverse en mass Obama's EO's?
Or would he decide it's better to just try to get along?
I think we all know the answer.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at November 18, 2014 12:02 PM (KK+mC)
356
Unless their absence is due to sudden and terminal cases of death, it wouldn't matter because the 2/3rds required to convict is based on the number of duly-elected Senators.
I don't think so. Article I Section III: "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
I don't think so. Article I Section III: "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 12:03 PM (evdj2)
357
Love C. Cooke, but the only thing assured by playing within the rules against an opponent who will not is losing.
If the Democrats have no regard for the constitution, federalism, or the rule of law, then they should be afforded none of its protections.
Love C. Cooke, but the only thing assured by playing within the rules against an opponent who will not is losing.
If the Democrats have no regard for the constitution, federalism, or the rule of law, then they should be afforded none of its protections.
Posted by: Sam In VA at November 18, 2014 12:03 PM (Q52VH)
358
This action will mean NOTHING, a group of illegals that were never going to be rounded up anyway under Obama will basically have the status quo. Their not going to be voting or become citizens.
________________________
It's definitely not the status quo. Obama is planning on doing a lot more than just not deporting them. He is going to issue them residency permits, work permits, Social Security numbers, and a whole host of other documents that give them all sorts of rights and privileges they do not currently have.
BTW, don't for one minute believe the nonsense about amnesty for "5 million" illegal aliens that is being thrown around in the press. It will be tens of millions -- which is why the administration put out a bid, months ago, for the printing of 34 MILLION residency and work permits.
The WH is claiming, and the press is repeating (without bothering to question, of course) that the illegals will have to prove that they have lived in the U.S. for a certain number of years. People, please understand that that is a total SCAM. The government will never verify any length of residency claims by illegal aliens. It does not have the money, or the manpower, or the political will to do it. It will simply accept the illegal aliens' word for it. (Just like they've been doing with the DACA applicants, BTW, Remember Obama's promise about how the DACA applicants would be subjected to "thorough background checks" before getting their residency permits, to ensure that illegal alien criminals and gang-bangers were not getting amnestied? Well guess what -- it never happened. Heritage served an FOIA request on DHS last year and requested documents showing how the background checks for DACA amnestees were being conducted -- and DHS responded that it had no such documents to turn over, because they're not doing background checks on the illegal alien amnesty applicants -- because DHS doesn't have the money or the manpower to do them for hundreds of thousands of amnesty applicants.
So don't believe for one hot second the Obama bullshit about "length of U.S. residency" being some sort of requirement for illegals to get amnesty. Any and every illegal who fills out an application will get the amnesty -- even if they just swam across the Rio Grande this morning.
________________________
It's definitely not the status quo. Obama is planning on doing a lot more than just not deporting them. He is going to issue them residency permits, work permits, Social Security numbers, and a whole host of other documents that give them all sorts of rights and privileges they do not currently have.
BTW, don't for one minute believe the nonsense about amnesty for "5 million" illegal aliens that is being thrown around in the press. It will be tens of millions -- which is why the administration put out a bid, months ago, for the printing of 34 MILLION residency and work permits.
The WH is claiming, and the press is repeating (without bothering to question, of course) that the illegals will have to prove that they have lived in the U.S. for a certain number of years. People, please understand that that is a total SCAM. The government will never verify any length of residency claims by illegal aliens. It does not have the money, or the manpower, or the political will to do it. It will simply accept the illegal aliens' word for it. (Just like they've been doing with the DACA applicants, BTW, Remember Obama's promise about how the DACA applicants would be subjected to "thorough background checks" before getting their residency permits, to ensure that illegal alien criminals and gang-bangers were not getting amnestied? Well guess what -- it never happened. Heritage served an FOIA request on DHS last year and requested documents showing how the background checks for DACA amnestees were being conducted -- and DHS responded that it had no such documents to turn over, because they're not doing background checks on the illegal alien amnesty applicants -- because DHS doesn't have the money or the manpower to do them for hundreds of thousands of amnesty applicants.
So don't believe for one hot second the Obama bullshit about "length of U.S. residency" being some sort of requirement for illegals to get amnesty. Any and every illegal who fills out an application will get the amnesty -- even if they just swam across the Rio Grande this morning.
Posted by: Senator Phil E. Buster at November 18, 2014 12:03 PM (2ruKl)
359
354 Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 12:02 PM (5+mPY)
What's funny in a Jack Napier kind of way is Obama's "pre-emptive pardon by EO" sorta means the President can order riots....
"This community is properly aggrieved so by EO I am ordering Federal agencies to not prosecute, and I will pardon any federal charges they accrue in getting 'justice'..."
//Bronko Bama
What's funny in a Jack Napier kind of way is Obama's "pre-emptive pardon by EO" sorta means the President can order riots....
"This community is properly aggrieved so by EO I am ordering Federal agencies to not prosecute, and I will pardon any federal charges they accrue in getting 'justice'..."
//Bronko Bama
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 12:03 PM (/4AZU)
360
I never knew the road to revolution would have so many damned words.
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 12:04 PM (5+mPY)
361
This idea though that Obama does an Executive Action and it leads to a full blown Amnesty with citizenship in 2 years is just TruCon Eeeyore bullshit.
I'm not making the case of "what me worry" but Obama really is the one that's screwing himself over with this deal. He's basically telling the INS to stand down selectively, something he already tried with the DREAM act that has already been slapped down by the Courts. This will also be slapped down
The dumbest thing Republicans could do is something like impeach him, that's really what this is all about. To bait Republicans into doing something stupid.
I'm not making the case of "what me worry" but Obama really is the one that's screwing himself over with this deal. He's basically telling the INS to stand down selectively, something he already tried with the DREAM act that has already been slapped down by the Courts. This will also be slapped down
The dumbest thing Republicans could do is something like impeach him, that's really what this is all about. To bait Republicans into doing something stupid.
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 12:04 PM (Aow3m)
362
What some TruCons are saying though is "WE NEED A FAILED IMPEACHMENT ATTEMPT WHERE WE PUBLICLY LOSE AND OBAMA BEATS US!"
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:33 AM (Aow3m)
That is a disparaging way of looking at their idea. Another take would be that they are simply unable to comprehend that Senators would countenance actual violations of law rather than impeach.
If you think Senators have some honor, then you won't recognize it as a failed attempt because you fully expect them to look at the facts and make the right decision.
If you cynically believe that Senators will deliberately ignore proof of law breaking because of partisan bias, then yes, it is a very stupid move.
The problem here is that the "true cons" don't normally think in terms of people holding public office as being criminal co-conspirators. They believe in that "rule of law" stuff.
Yeah, it's naive. I know.
What some TruCons are saying though is "WE NEED A FAILED IMPEACHMENT ATTEMPT WHERE WE PUBLICLY LOSE AND OBAMA BEATS US!"
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 11:33 AM (Aow3m)
That is a disparaging way of looking at their idea. Another take would be that they are simply unable to comprehend that Senators would countenance actual violations of law rather than impeach.
If you think Senators have some honor, then you won't recognize it as a failed attempt because you fully expect them to look at the facts and make the right decision.
If you cynically believe that Senators will deliberately ignore proof of law breaking because of partisan bias, then yes, it is a very stupid move.
The problem here is that the "true cons" don't normally think in terms of people holding public office as being criminal co-conspirators. They believe in that "rule of law" stuff.
Yeah, it's naive. I know.
Posted by: D-Lamp at November 18, 2014 12:04 PM (txvbW)
363
After amnesty Chuck Schumer will get infront of a camera surrounded with a backdrop of hispanics to cry elephant tears about how unfair and how much of an injustice it is, treating these hispanics like sub citizens 3/5ths of a person....
And the GOP will do nothing to stop it.
And the GOP will do nothing to stop it.
Posted by: pam at November 18, 2014 12:05 PM (cgrL5)
364
Agree with Drew and Cooke; following Obama's Caesarism after he has left office will just allow him to continue his mission to destroy this country.
Posted by: motionview at November 18, 2014 12:05 PM (8TTQR)
365
Do unto others, as they've done to you
But what the hell is this world coming to
...fight fire with fire
...fight fire with fire
.........,.You'll soon die
*bangs head*
But what the hell is this world coming to
...fight fire with fire
...fight fire with fire
.........,.You'll soon die
*bangs head*
Posted by: ginaswo channeling That Lyrics Guy at November 18, 2014 12:05 PM (+X1qa)
366
How many Divisions does Congress have?
Err... come to that- All of Them.
The point is not that any specific thing will work. The point is not to assume things *won't* work.
If the SCOAMT really is as lawless as all that- then drag it out for all to see. Have the spine to stand up for principles.
If you're going to Burn it Down, you have a responsibility to make sure it really needs burning down. You have to understand that full descent into lawlessness *is* the end of the United States. People will die- many (most) of them innocent (relatively speaking). And, historically speaking, what will replace it won't be... nice.
So that's the question- oppose the SCOAMT with every legal means possible, or grant that the Burning Times are here, and get on with the screaming.
I'm on the side of at least giving the newly empowered Republicans a *chance.* If (when) they blow it... well, they blow it and we'll deal with it. But simply assuming they'll blow it- and so never trying- is worse.
Err... come to that- All of Them.
The point is not that any specific thing will work. The point is not to assume things *won't* work.
If the SCOAMT really is as lawless as all that- then drag it out for all to see. Have the spine to stand up for principles.
If you're going to Burn it Down, you have a responsibility to make sure it really needs burning down. You have to understand that full descent into lawlessness *is* the end of the United States. People will die- many (most) of them innocent (relatively speaking). And, historically speaking, what will replace it won't be... nice.
So that's the question- oppose the SCOAMT with every legal means possible, or grant that the Burning Times are here, and get on with the screaming.
I'm on the side of at least giving the newly empowered Republicans a *chance.* If (when) they blow it... well, they blow it and we'll deal with it. But simply assuming they'll blow it- and so never trying- is worse.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) with a new job at November 18, 2014 12:05 PM (kff5f)
367
Playing by the rules (all of them, all the time) is simply not working.
The problem is that only one side recognizes rules or restraints.
TFG has already committed a shitload of clearly illegal actions and nobody has dared call him out on them. As long as we don't have an opposition party who is willing to even bring up the novel idea that a president has rules he has to abide by, and those rules are clearly written in the Constitution, we will continue down this road we did not choose.
The problem is that only one side recognizes rules or restraints.
TFG has already committed a shitload of clearly illegal actions and nobody has dared call him out on them. As long as we don't have an opposition party who is willing to even bring up the novel idea that a president has rules he has to abide by, and those rules are clearly written in the Constitution, we will continue down this road we did not choose.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Curmudgeon Extraordinaire at November 18, 2014 12:05 PM (0HooB)
368
I don't think so. Article I Section III: "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 12:03 PM (evdj2)
I stand corrected. The problem is you probably can't get 2/3rds of "Republicans" to convict Teh SCOAMT on any impeachment charge, and you do need 51 Senators for a quorum.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 12:03 PM (evdj2)
I stand corrected. The problem is you probably can't get 2/3rds of "Republicans" to convict Teh SCOAMT on any impeachment charge, and you do need 51 Senators for a quorum.
Posted by: steveegg at November 18, 2014 12:06 PM (cL79m)
369
Seriously, have you ever heard a clip of Boehner ( or McConnell) speaking that didn't make you physically cringe? Even assuming the GOP leadership had the will (which they don't), the problem remains that they are 2 of the worst, least charismatic, effective speakers I've ever heard in my life. To think they could ever put forward a cohesive case to the American people on why they need to fight Obama is laughable. Boehner sounds completely blotto every time he speaks. There is absolutely no way this fight can be won without effective articulation of conservative principles and the GOP leadership lacking in both areas.
And as to conservative media, as I understand it, Fox News has been a steady stream of "we can't do anything" by every single Republican for days, including all our newly elected "stars". I'm back to LIB for good.
And as to conservative media, as I understand it, Fox News has been a steady stream of "we can't do anything" by every single Republican for days, including all our newly elected "stars". I'm back to LIB for good.
Posted by: jeannebodine at November 18, 2014 12:06 PM (ABQuZ)
370
Prosecuting and jailing members of the former junta is well within the law so we do not have to be lawless to deter future lawlessness.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:45 AM (evdj2)
I keep saying this:
The number one *DUTY* of the next administration is putting as many members of the current administration behind bars as is possible.
Prosecuting and jailing members of the former junta is well within the law so we do not have to be lawless to deter future lawlessness.
Posted by: toby928(C) at November 18, 2014 11:45 AM (evdj2)
I keep saying this:
The number one *DUTY* of the next administration is putting as many members of the current administration behind bars as is possible.
Posted by: D-Lamp at November 18, 2014 12:06 PM (txvbW)
371
Unless their absence is due to sudden and terminal cases of death, it wouldn't matter because the 2/3rds required to convict is based on the number of duly-elected Senators.
I don't think so. Article I Section III: "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
-
So we hold the vote during the Ferguson riots.
P.S. feel good story of the day. A Ferguson SJW's car was stolen while she was disrupting a St Louis Symphony Orchestra concert. See WZ.
I don't think so. Article I Section III: "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
-
So we hold the vote during the Ferguson riots.
P.S. feel good story of the day. A Ferguson SJW's car was stolen while she was disrupting a St Louis Symphony Orchestra concert. See WZ.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at November 18, 2014 12:06 PM (XUKZU)
372
Hrothgar's Rule: You'd need at least 90 R Senators in the Senate to get an impeachment through because 25% of them would still be McCains, McConnells, Grahams, Collins, etc. when the chips were down!
Posted by: Hrothgar at November 18, 2014 11:50 AM (vPh3W)
I think this as well.
Hrothgar's Rule: You'd need at least 90 R Senators in the Senate to get an impeachment through because 25% of them would still be McCains, McConnells, Grahams, Collins, etc. when the chips were down!
Posted by: Hrothgar at November 18, 2014 11:50 AM (vPh3W)
I think this as well.
Posted by: D-Lamp at November 18, 2014 12:07 PM (txvbW)
373
...soon to fill our lungs
The hot winds of death
The Gods are laughing
So take your last breath....
Fight fire with fire
Fight fire with fire
*whips hair around doing Hetfield impression*
The hot winds of death
The Gods are laughing
So take your last breath....
Fight fire with fire
Fight fire with fire
*whips hair around doing Hetfield impression*
Posted by: ginaswo channeling That Lyrics Guy at November 18, 2014 12:07 PM (+X1qa)
374
A lie for a lie, a truth for a truth.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at November 18, 2014 12:07 PM (XUKZU)
375
At the very least, the Left should be made to BELIEVE they will be the victims of an imperial republican Presidency.
Really getting tired of our side unilaterally disarming before the fight (eg. "no impeachment"..."no shutdown...") etc.
At the very least, the Left should be made to BELIEVE they will be the victims of an imperial republican Presidency.
Really getting tired of our side unilaterally disarming before the fight (eg. "no impeachment"..."no shutdown...") etc.
Posted by: Sam In VA at November 18, 2014 12:08 PM (Q52VH)
376
For the GOP to foreswear any future resort to the Obama Rule effectively immunize the Democrats from the consequences of their actions, denies them a valuable learning opportunity, and just encourages them to engage in more lawlessness the next time they hold the presidency.
The law abiding did not pick this fight but they must end it.
For the GOP to foreswear any future resort to the Obama Rule effectively immunize the Democrats from the consequences of their actions, denies them a valuable learning opportunity, and just encourages them to engage in more lawlessness the next time they hold the presidency.
The law abiding did not pick this fight but they must end it.
Posted by: Raspail at November 18, 2014 12:08 PM (4HYng)
377
Hey Horde, I have a great idea. Let's legitimize the very thing that we despise about Obama/Reid/Pelosi (unconstrained, extra-constitutional, executive action, choosing which laws to enforce, punishing political enemies by discriminatory enforcement of laws). I am sure that the liberal media won't call us on that. I am sure that the won't say, "See, they had no problems at all with such behavior, so we were right. It's Racism, straight up." I am sure that compromising our principles for temporary political payback will be so worth it.
Who come's up with this stuff?
I lost some respect for the Federalist today.
Who come's up with this stuff?
I lost some respect for the Federalist today.
Posted by: flounder at November 18, 2014 12:09 PM (sDapq)
378
The number one *DUTY* of the next administration is putting as many members of the current administration behind bars as is possible.
Posted by: D-Lamp at November 18, 2014 12:06 PM (txvbW)
We would jail the guilty.
When the Democrats take power back - and they will - they'll jail the dissenters.
Is that the road we want to go down?
Posted by: D-Lamp at November 18, 2014 12:06 PM (txvbW)
We would jail the guilty.
When the Democrats take power back - and they will - they'll jail the dissenters.
Is that the road we want to go down?
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 12:09 PM (fwARV)
379
358.
Obviously I'm not a psychic, but if it goes that far, there's really only 2 options.
The other branches of government decide to not allow the country to have a self-appointed dictator or the country slips into anarchy in a few short years.
Time will tell.
Obviously I'm not a psychic, but if it goes that far, there's really only 2 options.
The other branches of government decide to not allow the country to have a self-appointed dictator or the country slips into anarchy in a few short years.
Time will tell.
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 12:09 PM (Aow3m)
380
I wonder if the conversations we are having mirror the conversations in America a la 1770 or so between the Loyalists, the Separatists, and the Equivocators ( okay, I made the last one up)?
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 12:09 PM (5+mPY)
381
You will never defeat your enemy until you learn from your enemy. Question: If the Russians launched their nukes at us, would you hold back launching at them because it "leads to a dark place"? If Obama breaks the constitution to get what he wants, would you let it stand because you do not want to break the constitution? If you are too honorable to do what must be done, then you can be sure you will fail and die with honor. We have not had a rule of law in this nation for some time now. If you cannot accept that and respond accordingly, you will achieve nothing. Dying with dignity sounds noble and all, but I have kids and I want them to have at least some remnants of the nation I love. For me, nobility is not an option.
Posted by: Bob the Weasel at November 18, 2014 12:10 PM (BKPeM)
382
Welcome to Spain, ca. 1935.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 18, 2014 12:10 PM (oKE6c)
383
So if you look in my direction
And we don't see eye to eye
Our border needs protection and so do IIIIIIIII
And we don't see eye to eye
Our border needs protection and so do IIIIIIIII
Posted by: ginaswo channeling That Lyrics Guy at November 18, 2014 12:11 PM (+X1qa)
384
I'd be more inclined to Cooke's side of the argument if the GOP were serious about taking a sledge hammer to the deep state.
But they aren't, and they won't.
So it's kind of a moot point whether or not we get a power-mad barbarian for Chief Executive.
But they aren't, and they won't.
So it's kind of a moot point whether or not we get a power-mad barbarian for Chief Executive.
Posted by: weft cut-loop, now in Dark Chunks! at November 18, 2014 12:11 PM (/lTUs)
385
Welcome to Spain, ca. 1935.
-
Not the same thing. They ended with fascism and a monarchy. We're starting with fascism and a monarchy.
-
Not the same thing. They ended with fascism and a monarchy. We're starting with fascism and a monarchy.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at November 18, 2014 12:12 PM (XUKZU)
386
The topic of the post and content of most of the comments make clear why we have the 2nd Amendment. But without the will to exercise that right, it remains moot, just like what most of the Constitution is right now.
People are still too comfortable to make the sacrifice.
People are still too comfortable to make the sacrifice.
Posted by: Soona at November 18, 2014 12:12 PM (qaepl)
387
A huge part of the problem is the failure of Republicans and allied 501 groups to publicly, vocally, and persuasively explain this as a power grab. It's the perfect wedge issue to drive black Dems away from the Donks. I can see why the R's aren't eager to anger the Chamber of Commerce lobby, but the 501's silence is inexplicable.
Posted by: Ummberto Echo at November 18, 2014 12:13 PM (AFLVz)
388
Potentially ~140 or so....
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:54 AM (/4AZU)
One would like to think so, but after what i've seen so far, I no longer have as much faith in this as I once did.
Potentially ~140 or so....
Posted by: Sven S Blade a.k.a. El Assassin@sven10077 at November 18, 2014 11:54 AM (/4AZU)
One would like to think so, but after what i've seen so far, I no longer have as much faith in this as I once did.
Posted by: D-Lamp at November 18, 2014 12:13 PM (txvbW)
389
For the record, I am not "Jimbo".
Start with separate appropriations bills. No more effing Omnibus bills.
When (not if) Obama vetoes them and shuts down the government, let the impeachment begin.
Start with separate appropriations bills. No more effing Omnibus bills.
When (not if) Obama vetoes them and shuts down the government, let the impeachment begin.
Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at November 18, 2014 12:14 PM (V70Uh)
390
386 The topic of the post and content of most of the comments make clear why we have the 2nd Amendment. But without the will to exercise that right, it remains moot, just like what most of the Constitution is right now.
People are still too comfortable to make the sacrifice.
Posted by: Soona at November 18, 2014 12:12 PM (qaepl)
They're working on that.
People are still too comfortable to make the sacrifice.
Posted by: Soona at November 18, 2014 12:12 PM (qaepl)
They're working on that.
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 12:14 PM (5+mPY)
391
He's basically telling the INS to stand down selectively, something he already tried with the DREAM act that has already been slapped down by the Courts.
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 12:04 PM (Aow3m)
_____________________________
Wrong. The DACA (DREAMer) EO was challenged in court by some ICE agents. They won (the court said the EO was an unconstitutional usurpation of congress' authority to regulate immigration), but the decision was reversed on appeal (for lack of standing). Congress and the states never challenged the EO, and the states have been meekly accepting the DACA residency permits as if they were legally valid.
Obama got away with the DACA EO, which is why he is now emboldened to do an even bigger amnesty EO, for the tens of millions of illegals who weren't included in DACA. ("Give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want a glass of milk." The next, bigger amnesty EO is Obama's glass of milk).
This is one (of many) reasons why the states must challenge Obama's blatantly unconstitutional EOs (including DACA) now, before it's too late.
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 12:04 PM (Aow3m)
_____________________________
Wrong. The DACA (DREAMer) EO was challenged in court by some ICE agents. They won (the court said the EO was an unconstitutional usurpation of congress' authority to regulate immigration), but the decision was reversed on appeal (for lack of standing). Congress and the states never challenged the EO, and the states have been meekly accepting the DACA residency permits as if they were legally valid.
Obama got away with the DACA EO, which is why he is now emboldened to do an even bigger amnesty EO, for the tens of millions of illegals who weren't included in DACA. ("Give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want a glass of milk." The next, bigger amnesty EO is Obama's glass of milk).
This is one (of many) reasons why the states must challenge Obama's blatantly unconstitutional EOs (including DACA) now, before it's too late.
Posted by: Senator Phil E. Buster at November 18, 2014 12:15 PM (2ruKl)
392
So I say TFG does illegal amnesty Thursday to 'honor' Mexican Revolution Day
Posted by: ginaswo at November 18, 2014 12:15 PM (+X1qa)
393
For me, nobility is not an option.
Posted by: Bob the Weasel at November 18, 2014 12:10 PM (BKPeM)
"I'm a parent. I haven't got the luxury of 'principle'."
Posted by: Bob the Weasel at November 18, 2014 12:10 PM (BKPeM)
"I'm a parent. I haven't got the luxury of 'principle'."
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 12:15 PM (fwARV)
394
364 Agree with Drew and Cooke; following Obama's Caesarism after he has left office will just allow him to continue his mission to destroy this country.
Posted by: motionview
For what possible reason would Obama not just decree that he's taking four more years after 2016 to get stuff done (you know, because he has lost patience with the congress and such)? If GOP can't get on hind legs, then I think its IF he leaves office not WHEN.
Posted by: motionview
For what possible reason would Obama not just decree that he's taking four more years after 2016 to get stuff done (you know, because he has lost patience with the congress and such)? If GOP can't get on hind legs, then I think its IF he leaves office not WHEN.
Posted by: dirks strewn at November 18, 2014 12:15 PM (mG3zA)
395
393 For me, nobility is not an option.
Posted by: Bob the Weasel at November 18, 2014 12:10 PM (BKPeM)
"I'm a parent. I haven't got the luxury of 'principle'."
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 12:15 PM (fwARV)
They're working on that, too.
Posted by: Bob the Weasel at November 18, 2014 12:10 PM (BKPeM)
"I'm a parent. I haven't got the luxury of 'principle'."
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 12:15 PM (fwARV)
They're working on that, too.
Posted by: kraken at November 18, 2014 12:16 PM (5+mPY)
396
Can you hear the drums Fernando?
Posted by: ginaswo singing Abba at November 18, 2014 12:16 PM (+X1qa)
397
So, we've really come to the point where people like Gabe are arguing for Pinochet over Castro, rather than arguing for the constitution? What a sad and scary place.
Posted by: GM at November 18, 2014 12:16 PM (K0tm3)
398
The new GOP Congress should do something big, Constitutional, and yet wildly popular.
I nominate cutting all federal civil workers' wages and benefits in half. Let 'em look for a job in the private sector and balance the federal budget at the same time.
I nominate cutting all federal civil workers' wages and benefits in half. Let 'em look for a job in the private sector and balance the federal budget at the same time.
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawunduh at November 18, 2014 12:16 PM (HBAcW)
399
P.S. feel good story of the day. A Ferguson SJW's car was stolen while she was disrupting a St Louis Symphony Orchestra concert. See WZ.
Stolen or repo'ed?
Stolen or repo'ed?
Posted by: rickb223 at November 18, 2014 12:17 PM (w0a3q)
400
If GOP can't get on hind legs, then I think its IF he leaves office not WHEN.
Posted by: dirks strewn at November 18, 2014 12:15 PM (mG3zA)
I've always thought it was cute how so many people just assumed Obama'll leave in 2017.
Posted by: dirks strewn at November 18, 2014 12:15 PM (mG3zA)
I've always thought it was cute how so many people just assumed Obama'll leave in 2017.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at November 18, 2014 12:17 PM (fwARV)
401
RINO's are always looking for a way out, a way to shirk their responsibilities to their country, its citizens, and to their children and grandchildren.
They will rationalize their way out of actual conflict or accomplishment. Chicken-shits all.
These illegals will get citizenship under the RINOs, guaran-damn-teed.
They will rationalize their way out of actual conflict or accomplishment. Chicken-shits all.
These illegals will get citizenship under the RINOs, guaran-damn-teed.
Posted by: pam at November 18, 2014 12:18 PM (cgrL5)
402
AZ passed an amendment to our state Constitution Election Day barring ANY state funding for any Federal directive that violates our Constitution
Litigation to follow
We also elected a strong AG who will fight to defend it
Litigation to follow
We also elected a strong AG who will fight to defend it
Posted by: ginaswo singing Abba at November 18, 2014 12:18 PM (+X1qa)
403
off damn Swedish sock
Posted by: ginaswo at November 18, 2014 12:19 PM (+X1qa)
404
Americans will never be represented again.
Posted by: Juni at November 18, 2014 12:20 PM (BvPWF)
Posted by: Hillary Clinton at November 18, 2014 12:21 PM (HSmrB)
406
250 A professor at DePauw University (DU) apologized to students for being a white, middle-class, heterosexual man, claiming his silence in addressing racism and inclusion makes the issues inherently his fault.
Oh good Lord, what a pussy.
Posted by: Insomniac
He should apologize to the women he tried to seduce (both of them) and who turned him down (again both of them), for wasting their time in the first place.
Oh good Lord, what a pussy.
Posted by: Insomniac
He should apologize to the women he tried to seduce (both of them) and who turned him down (again both of them), for wasting their time in the first place.
Posted by: dirks strewn at November 18, 2014 12:21 PM (mG3zA)
407
I think the best hope we have for TFG to leave office is that HRC is running and wants him out of her chair
If we had to rely on GOPe to get him out we'd be waiting for Godot (of Guffman)
If we had to rely on GOPe to get him out we'd be waiting for Godot (of Guffman)
Posted by: ginaswo at November 18, 2014 12:21 PM (+X1qa)
408
Wrong. The DACA (DREAMer) EO was challenged in court by some ICE agents. They won (the court said the EO was an unconstitutional usurpation of congress' authority to regulate immigration), but the decision was reversed on appeal (for lack of standing). Congress and the states never challenged the EO, and the states have been meekly accepting the DACA residency permits as if they were legally valid.
_________________
It's essentially working its way through the Court system, but I don't see how I misrepresented it.
The Executive is on very shaky legal ground and I believe it will ultimately be struck down.
_________________
It's essentially working its way through the Court system, but I don't see how I misrepresented it.
The Executive is on very shaky legal ground and I believe it will ultimately be struck down.
Posted by: Jimbo at November 18, 2014 12:23 PM (Aow3m)
Posted by: Hillary Clinton at November 18, 2014 12:24 PM (HSmrB)
410
For what possible reason would Obama not just decree that he's taking four more years after 2016 to get stuff done (you know, because he has lost patience with the congress and such)? If GOP can't get on hind legs, then I think its IF he leaves office not WHEN.
Posted by: dirks strewn at November 18, 2014 12:15 PM (mG3zA)
-------------------
We keep wondering why he goes on so many fundraisers but never shares the wealth with other election campaigns.
Do NOT be surprised at what happens between now and 2016. As many have stated already, he's made the Constitution moot.
Posted by: dirks strewn at November 18, 2014 12:15 PM (mG3zA)
-------------------
We keep wondering why he goes on so many fundraisers but never shares the wealth with other election campaigns.
Do NOT be surprised at what happens between now and 2016. As many have stated already, he's made the Constitution moot.
Posted by: Soona at November 18, 2014 12:24 PM (qaepl)
411
just reverse all of the Obama orders ... and prosecute any members of the admin who carried out these illegal orders ... they wanted to prosecute the CIA guys ... good for the goose is good for the gander ...
Posted by: JeffC at November 18, 2014 12:25 PM (hYYqD)
Posted by: Hillary Clinton at November 18, 2014 12:26 PM (HSmrB)
413
If one side cheats and the other side doesn't, the cheaters will win in the end.
Fight fire with fire. Or maybe with artillery support, if we want to ratchet things up a few notches.
Fight fire with fire. Or maybe with artillery support, if we want to ratchet things up a few notches.
Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at November 18, 2014 12:29 PM (EtwGU)
414
Personally, I cannot embrace any position that is in violation of the Constitution. In my dream world, a new political party would emerge - one that is faithfully devoted to the Constitution - and that would find acceptance on a majority of the electorate.
Posted by: SH at November 18, 2014 12:30 PM (gmeXX)
415
...and that would find acceptance on a majority of the electorate.
Posted by: SH at November 18, 2014 12:30 PM (gmeXX)
-----
**ahem**
let's talk about this word.... majority....
Posted by: SH at November 18, 2014 12:30 PM (gmeXX)
-----
**ahem**
let's talk about this word.... majority....
Posted by: The 52% of the Electorate that voted BHO..... TWICE at November 18, 2014 12:32 PM (NaV4z)
416
Personally, I cannot embrace any position that is in violation of the Constitution. In my dream world, a new political party would emerge - one that is faithfully devoted to the Constitution - and that would find acceptance on a majority of the electorate.
Posted by: SH
-------------------------------
Sadly, that isn't the way it works...., at least not in the space of a few generations. Witness: Venezuela.
At any rate, we are faced with very real, very dangerous external threats that must be addressed NOW.
Posted by: SH
-------------------------------
Sadly, that isn't the way it works...., at least not in the space of a few generations. Witness: Venezuela.
At any rate, we are faced with very real, very dangerous external threats that must be addressed NOW.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at November 18, 2014 12:34 PM (vPh3W)
417
Take a shit on your ballot because that's all the good it will do. There will be no "when we get in there next time"
Posted by: Juni at November 18, 2014 12:38 PM (BvPWF)
418
Ahem. I take it there are no CS majors here. This problem is very simply modelled by the multi-stage Prisoner's Dilemma in game theory.
You start off by playing fair, but when the other side plays dirty, you follow suit (tit-for-tat strategy). But, and here's the important part, if the other side *stops* cheating and reverts to fair play, so do you.
The question is whether or not you're in this situation, and whether or not matters have deteriorated beyond salvation.
You start off by playing fair, but when the other side plays dirty, you follow suit (tit-for-tat strategy). But, and here's the important part, if the other side *stops* cheating and reverts to fair play, so do you.
The question is whether or not you're in this situation, and whether or not matters have deteriorated beyond salvation.
Posted by: Gregory Kong at November 18, 2014 12:39 PM (cyghD)
419
Rather than abrogating the Constitution, I recommend using it. Reconstitute HUAC to investigate Red penetration of academia and the media, and reinstitute loyalty oaths for anyone who is paid in whole or in part by the Government. That would include university professors, whose institutions derive most of their operating costs from overheads on Federal grants.
Yeah, I know, some, maybe most, will lie, but it forces them into an uncomfortable position, and sets the tone of the place.
Yeah, I know, some, maybe most, will lie, but it forces them into an uncomfortable position, and sets the tone of the place.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 18, 2014 12:42 PM (oKE6c)
420
You start off by playing fair, but when the other side plays dirty, you follow suit (tit-for-tat strategy). But, and here's the important part, if the other side *stops* cheating and reverts to fair play, so do you. The question is whether or not you're in this situation, and whether or not matters have deteriorated beyond salvation.
Posted by: Gregory Kong at November 18, 2014 12:39 PM (cyghD)
The problem is that it's unlikely the Left would ever play fair, and certainly not while they have the academic, Hollywood, and the MSM megaphone available to get out their agitprop. As a consequence, we'd degenerate into a strong man dictatorship.
I say again, we're living in Spain, ca. 1935. Like then, the Reds have overreached, creating a yawning chasm that cannot be bridged. The question is what happens next.
Posted by: Gregory Kong at November 18, 2014 12:39 PM (cyghD)
The problem is that it's unlikely the Left would ever play fair, and certainly not while they have the academic, Hollywood, and the MSM megaphone available to get out their agitprop. As a consequence, we'd degenerate into a strong man dictatorship.
I say again, we're living in Spain, ca. 1935. Like then, the Reds have overreached, creating a yawning chasm that cannot be bridged. The question is what happens next.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 18, 2014 12:46 PM (oKE6c)
421
Even after the little brown dictator is gone, we have faux-a-hauntis warming up in the bull pen. We will still be getting rich and destroying you in the process. We own you.
Posted by: The 1% at November 18, 2014 12:49 PM (cAynM)
422
Romeo, at 204 I meant being with Drew and Cooke in jest. Should have sarc'd it.
I'm coming to terms with the dread that we no longer live in a civilized society. Precisely when it happened is a blurred line but as much as I'd like to deny it, we now dwell in a (political and rhetorical) schoolyard with a population that is one-quarter bully and one-quarter rich kid. And the rich kids have cut a deal with the bullies.
So by all means let's go on prissily bleating "we mustn't lower ourselves to the bully's level!" Lecture him about collegiality and bipartisanship. A Lincoln quote or something from a dead Roman will convince him this time.
Or the next.
Be sure to get your platitudes out between punches. It's rude and unproductive to interrupt a fellow while he's making hamburger out of your face for justice!
And heaven forbid, don't spit your blood and teeth on his shoes like last time. That's no fit way for a gentleman to make friends and influence people.
I'm coming to terms with the dread that we no longer live in a civilized society. Precisely when it happened is a blurred line but as much as I'd like to deny it, we now dwell in a (political and rhetorical) schoolyard with a population that is one-quarter bully and one-quarter rich kid. And the rich kids have cut a deal with the bullies.
So by all means let's go on prissily bleating "we mustn't lower ourselves to the bully's level!" Lecture him about collegiality and bipartisanship. A Lincoln quote or something from a dead Roman will convince him this time.
Or the next.
Be sure to get your platitudes out between punches. It's rude and unproductive to interrupt a fellow while he's making hamburger out of your face for justice!
And heaven forbid, don't spit your blood and teeth on his shoes like last time. That's no fit way for a gentleman to make friends and influence people.
Posted by: Chico Esquela at November 18, 2014 12:55 PM (K44uE)
423
@420 Jay Guevara
"I say again, we're living in Spain, ca. 1935. Like then, the Reds have overreached, creating a yawning chasm that cannot be bridged. The question is what happens next."
Murder and mayhem.
"I say again, we're living in Spain, ca. 1935. Like then, the Reds have overreached, creating a yawning chasm that cannot be bridged. The question is what happens next."
Murder and mayhem.
Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at November 18, 2014 12:55 PM (cAynM)
424
Actually, the longer version is fuck no.
Failing to pull back invites disaster of epic proportions. SMOD will not get here in time to save us from that disaster if we permit it to go forward.
Actually, the longer version is fuck no.
Failing to pull back invites disaster of epic proportions. SMOD will not get here in time to save us from that disaster if we permit it to go forward.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at November 18, 2014 01:20 PM (1hM1d)
425
"And I repeat for the third time. This is NOT the problem. The problem is
spineless Republicans took it off the table w/o any prompting and
nothing in return."
Vic, with all respect, I must disagree. Impeachment without conviction is an unloaded gun: the experience with Clinton proved that. Worse, acquittal was framed by the MFM as vindication, and it turned the national debate, such as it was, away from what Clinton had done, to what the Republicans were doing.
So what should we do? A lawless president backed by a lawless bureaucracy, a feckless media, and a national party whose lust for power has overwhelmed any and all principle, is a difficult combination to defeat. Our only hope is to marshall the force of public opinion - and do so despite the friends of tyranny controlling mass media.
Our only recourse, I think, is to take control of the budget process again: No more omnibus spending bills. Appropriations must be for specific departments, for specific periods of time, and addressing specific abuses: a rapier, not a bludgeon.
"And I repeat for the third time. This is NOT the problem. The problem is
spineless Republicans took it off the table w/o any prompting and
nothing in return."
Vic, with all respect, I must disagree. Impeachment without conviction is an unloaded gun: the experience with Clinton proved that. Worse, acquittal was framed by the MFM as vindication, and it turned the national debate, such as it was, away from what Clinton had done, to what the Republicans were doing.
So what should we do? A lawless president backed by a lawless bureaucracy, a feckless media, and a national party whose lust for power has overwhelmed any and all principle, is a difficult combination to defeat. Our only hope is to marshall the force of public opinion - and do so despite the friends of tyranny controlling mass media.
Our only recourse, I think, is to take control of the budget process again: No more omnibus spending bills. Appropriations must be for specific departments, for specific periods of time, and addressing specific abuses: a rapier, not a bludgeon.
Posted by: Brown Line at November 18, 2014 01:20 PM (xgyfF)
426
Personally, Sulla was my favorite Roman. And I like the Romans a lot.
Posted by: Klawnet at November 18, 2014 01:22 PM (VQea+)
427
Marxists have taken over, they are making it impossible to overcome them. And we don't know wtf to do about it.
Posted by: Juni at November 18, 2014 01:46 PM (BvPWF)
428
Yes, we must respect the rule of law and always oppose excessive executive power...
Posted by: M. Junius Brutus at November 18, 2014 01:51 PM (lN8KC)
429
Fight fire with fire comes to mind.
Posted by: Nanny Hag at November 18, 2014 01:54 PM (Queum)
430
Not that anyone is reading this thread, but perhaps we have gotten to the point were we have to choose between "good emperors", and "bad emperors"?
Posted by: M. Junius Brutus at November 18, 2014 01:55 PM (lN8KC)
431
The next GOP president signs an executive order rescinding all Obama executive orders. Problem solved.
Posted by: reh1 at November 18, 2014 02:19 PM (J/qVr)
432
(Drew): "It's hard to see how the solution to lawlessness is more lawlessness."
No, it's not. Read Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation. Tit-for-tat (in a ratio of 9/10 retaliation to offense. For example, how long should the Republican Senate majority maintain the Reid rule on the filibuster? Duration of the rule under the Democrat majority times .9.
No, it's not. Read Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation. Tit-for-tat (in a ratio of 9/10 retaliation to offense. For example, how long should the Republican Senate majority maintain the Reid rule on the filibuster? Duration of the rule under the Democrat majority times .9.
Posted by: Malcolm Kirkpatrick at November 18, 2014 02:59 PM (uHUBu)
433
Obama is a ware time POTUS. They have unlimited power
Posted by: Tighter at November 18, 2014 04:07 PM (lDIk/)
434
The undocumented will now be less likely to help ISIS sneak across the border
It could save American live
It could save American live
Posted by: Tighter at November 18, 2014 04:27 PM (lDIk/)
435
Yes we should fight fire with Hell Fire. Veto bait with flavor of skunk.
Present each of the 13 appropriation bills on Obama's desk for 2014 (not 2015), one week apart starting with the EPA. If he doesn't like it's budget rolled back to 2006 spending levels, there is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress has to agree to fund it at all. There is no default budget provision. After Obama's first veto the House and Senate Majority Leaders would send a letter to OPM stating matter of factly that there will be no future appropriations for the EPA and that they should perform an orderly shut down of that department discharging the employees. Watch liberals squeal.
The following week send a neutered HHS appropriation bill to Obama. The ACA is under the HHS budget which would be defunded. Let him veto it with the clear understanding that his way or the highway approach will get that agency defunded entirely as well IF he refuses to compromise. After a few of the more onerous agencies are defunded, Obama will either resign or sign the rest of the bills shrieking as he does so.
No Democrat Senators votes will be needed for any of those bills since the object is NOT to over ride a veto but to provide Obama with a poison pill as veto bait.
Present each of the 13 appropriation bills on Obama's desk for 2014 (not 2015), one week apart starting with the EPA. If he doesn't like it's budget rolled back to 2006 spending levels, there is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress has to agree to fund it at all. There is no default budget provision. After Obama's first veto the House and Senate Majority Leaders would send a letter to OPM stating matter of factly that there will be no future appropriations for the EPA and that they should perform an orderly shut down of that department discharging the employees. Watch liberals squeal.
The following week send a neutered HHS appropriation bill to Obama. The ACA is under the HHS budget which would be defunded. Let him veto it with the clear understanding that his way or the highway approach will get that agency defunded entirely as well IF he refuses to compromise. After a few of the more onerous agencies are defunded, Obama will either resign or sign the rest of the bills shrieking as he does so.
No Democrat Senators votes will be needed for any of those bills since the object is NOT to over ride a veto but to provide Obama with a poison pill as veto bait.
Posted by: dscott at November 18, 2014 04:43 PM (z1cFM)
436
Hell yes, we should.
A republican president should thank Obama for "showing us the way" then abolish all the fed agencies. Then outlaw sex education in schools, replace with firearms training. And YES, make it a requirement.
Declare the commerce clause null and void.
Require the university system in every state and town to hire and retain AT LEAST the same number of right-wing faculty v. left-wing faculty. (That puts a million hippie Marxist professors out of work and pan-handling on the streets where they belong).
Hollywood producers and actors can go to 90% income tax because they "haven't paid their fair share."
There need to be an equal number of right wing newspapers and TV news networks and programs as there are left wing. All in the interest of fairness of course.
There's a million other ways to kick 'em in the balls and we should do it for at least 8 long years. Finally by outlawing progressives completely by (I don't know...) maybe using the IRS to shut down all their victim industries and jailing their CEOs. Seems reasonable, right? We can just declare on national news that there's nothing to be investigated, because it's all perfectly legit. Just declaring it makes it so, don't ya know? Thanks Bams!!
Their party should be eviscerated, not only its influence in politics but in the culture as well.
How is this a bad plan?
A republican president should thank Obama for "showing us the way" then abolish all the fed agencies. Then outlaw sex education in schools, replace with firearms training. And YES, make it a requirement.
Declare the commerce clause null and void.
Require the university system in every state and town to hire and retain AT LEAST the same number of right-wing faculty v. left-wing faculty. (That puts a million hippie Marxist professors out of work and pan-handling on the streets where they belong).
Hollywood producers and actors can go to 90% income tax because they "haven't paid their fair share."
There need to be an equal number of right wing newspapers and TV news networks and programs as there are left wing. All in the interest of fairness of course.
There's a million other ways to kick 'em in the balls and we should do it for at least 8 long years. Finally by outlawing progressives completely by (I don't know...) maybe using the IRS to shut down all their victim industries and jailing their CEOs. Seems reasonable, right? We can just declare on national news that there's nothing to be investigated, because it's all perfectly legit. Just declaring it makes it so, don't ya know? Thanks Bams!!
Their party should be eviscerated, not only its influence in politics but in the culture as well.
How is this a bad plan?
Posted by: FredB at November 18, 2014 07:15 PM (cFj+q)
437
the dumbocrats are so short sighted politically, and they are completely driven by the ends justifying the means. they don't care if they have to lie, cheat, smear, and lie some more in order to get their way. they are the anointed, and they feel that they have the moral imperative to act by any means necessary. this is their world view. they will rue the day they turned the office of the presidency into something akin to a south american strong man. the very power that they are grabbing for themselves may very well be turned against them someday. the irs, used to attack the conservatives, could very well end up persecuting liberals in turn. unfortunately, the good and decent American people may very well also suffer for the course the dumbocrats have set us on. in short, it may very well be that they did fundamentally change the U.S., but I am not sure if tyrannical dictatorship was what they had in mind. all I know is that the Republicans must do everything they can to stand up against this awful, horrible man sitting in the white house. is it too dramatic to say that the very country itself is at stake? i don't think so.
Posted by: Mistress Not Done yet at November 18, 2014 07:49 PM (2/oBD)
438
""I say again, we're living in Spain, ca. 1935. Like then, the Reds have overreached, creating a yawning chasm that cannot be bridged. The question is what happens next."
Murder and mayhem."
I dunno about violence. I do believe, by insisting it has absolutely no role in driving or shaping public opinion, the Republican Party has ceded opposition to socialism to some other factor yet to be determined. And if we want to oppose socialism, any time we spend trying to influence Republicans is wasted.
Murder and mayhem."
I dunno about violence. I do believe, by insisting it has absolutely no role in driving or shaping public opinion, the Republican Party has ceded opposition to socialism to some other factor yet to be determined. And if we want to oppose socialism, any time we spend trying to influence Republicans is wasted.
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at November 19, 2014 01:33 PM (pYEaj)
Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.056 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0202 seconds, 446 records returned.
Page size 283 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat