TBD on Ning
Which one is worse?
Here's an interesting summation from the N Y Post:
When I first saw the headline saying Bill Clinton was advising President Obama to “honor his commitment,” I had to laugh. The idea of Monica Lewinsky’s boyfriend as moral referee always cracks me up.
Then I got to wondering. Which commitment was Clinton talking about?
Is it the one Obama made to the Israeli people, that he had their backs and would never let Iran get a nuclear weapon? Or was it his promise to enforce a “red line” in Syria?
Or maybe it was Obama’s promise to “never rest” until we caught the terrorists who killed our ambassador and three other Americans in Libya?
Or was Clinton talking about the many times the president said he would “never rest” until every American who wanted a job had one?
Or maybe he was talking about the pledge to change the tone in Washington? Or to go through the budget “line by line” and cross out the waste driving up the deficit?
You get the picture — any of those whoppers would qualify. But, of course, Clinton was talking about the broken promise of the moment, the one where Obama vowed that “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it.”
It ranks as one of the biggest presidential lies of modern times, all the more so because Obama repeated it 30 times. The fallout of millions being forced from their policies, an experience exacerbated by the hapless Web site, has created a crisis of confidence so vast, it threatens to swallow the second term.
http://nypost.com/2013/11/13/obamas-latest-broken-promise-is-destro...
Views: 243
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ProblemAgain on
-
so this is cod's idea of 'adult discussions of facts' all the while he complains about others....transparent? obsessive? perhaps compulsive like a serial wanker
Reply by base2final 3 hours ago
When you act like an adult and ask serious questions, I will answer you. Until then try and be an adult.
Reply by base2final 3 hours ago
Show some proof of that Life.
Reply by base2final 3 hours ago
I would formally like to request that you be thrown out of this group Snagg. Is not calling someone a lying pussy a personal attack? Where is the group moderator?? I thought we could attack the message and not the messenger???I don't recall that this was a discussion about Ted Cruz. Why divert to that?
so the shutdown lasted 16 days. Affected very few people. Mostly veterans being restricted from their WW11 monument. Obamacare has now been causing problems. now to millions with cancelled policies, for over 45 days. Most normal people have forgotten about the shut down, but every day they are reminded of Obamacare. Democrats are running for cover and Reid called for a special meeting today. They are trying to protect themselves for the 2014 elections.
All this going on and you worry about Ted Cruz? I rest my case.
(THIS from the guy who ignores repeated requests and demands for links and proofs of his continuous accusations and claims and funny but there was a BIG hooplah about all the damage done by the shutdown from the right until public opinion showed that people understood it was cruz and the right wing wackos who shut down the govt, not the executive branch and in reality not so much the moderate right but the lack of balls they showed in standing up to cruz and his demented warriors.)
-
-
-
Warren: Blocking judges is GOP’s attempt to ‘nullify’ election
11/13/13 04:45 PM
A fed-up Elizabeth Warren called out Republicans’ “naked attempts to nullify the results of the last presidential election” and warned of payback in the mode of filibuster reform if they keep blocking all of Obama’s judicial nominees.
“Republicans may not like Wall Street reform. They may not like Obamacare. But Congress passed those laws,” Warren said Wednesday on the Senate floor. “President Obama ran for reelection on those laws, while his opponent pledged to repeal them–and his opponent lost by nearly five million votes. It is not up to judges to overturn those laws or their associated regulations just because they don’t fit those judges’ policy preferences.”
President Obama has been batting 0 for 3 to get his Democratic candidates (all women) onto the D.C. Circuit Court, the nation’s second most powerful bench.
On Tuesday, Senate Republicans blocked the nomination of Nina Pillard. She had been under fire by conservatives for her pro-choice views on abortion. Less than two weeks ago, Republicans pulled out the same tactics by filibustering the nomination of Patricia Millett–a person even Ted Cruz considered fit for the job. And before that it was Caitlin Halligan who fell victim to another GOP filibuster earlier in the year. It’s a pattern.
“The powerful interests that work to rig the Supreme Court also want to rig the lower courts,” said Warren. “The D.C. Circuit is a particular target because that court has the power to overturn agency regulations.”
Three slots remain open on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Adding Democratic nominees to the bench would shift the balance of power to be less conservative–something Republicans’ do not want to see happen.
Warren signaled there could be a fight ahead on filibuster rules if the GOP keeps holding Obama’s court nominations hostage.
“Senators not only have a right to change the filibuster rules, senators have a duty to change the filibuster rules. We cannot turn our backs on the Constitution,” she said. “We have a responsibility to protect and defend our democracy, and that includes protecting the neutrality of our courts–and preserving the Constitutional power of the president to nominate highly qualified people to fill their vacancies.”
Funny how things change: at least 12 of the senators who voted to block Pillard argued, during the George W. Bush administration that filibustering court nominees was unconstitutional.
-
-
-
In 1996, a Republican-controlled Congress succeeded in giving line-item veto authority to Democratic President Bill Clinton. He exercised that authority 82 times, and although Congress overrode his veto in 38 instances, the moves saved the government almost $2 billion.
But in 1998, on a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, saying it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.
-
-
-
you twits can't seem to make up your minds. or does it depend on who is in the white house?
| Follow Us
Senate Should Vote No on Line-item Veto Bill
On Feb. 8 the House passed H.R. 3521, the unconstitutional, line-item veto bill; the Senate should defeat it.
There was general debate on the floor of the House on a new line-item veto bill sponsored by Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) on Wednesday, Feb. 8, immediately preceding a vote. The Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2012 (H.R. 3521) would give the President the authority to rescind all or part of any dollar amount of funding for discretionary spending items in enacted appropriations bills.
Although both Houses of Congress would have to approve any such rescissions, they would be forced to do so very quickly by the bill's expedited procedures, including a prohibition on amendments in both Houses and filibusters in the Senate.
During the House floor debate, H.R. 3521 was touted as one tool in the tool box of deficit reduction, a modest attempt to control spending. Rep. Van Hollen was quick to assure everyone that the constitutionality “question needs to be put to rest,” because Congress would have the last say in the matter through an up or down vote, even though H.R. 3521 dramatically and unilaterally enhances the power of the Executive Branch. Note that Article I, Section 1 and Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3 of the U.S. Constitution vest Congress with all legislative powers. Any bill that shifts legislative power away from Congress and to the President is unworthy of Congress and shows an abdication and dereliction of congressional duties. -
-
Permalink Reply by A4L on
-
highlights the extent of the challenge:
Research commissioned by the Pew Center on the States highlights the extent of the challenge:
- Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
- More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
- Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.
Meanwhile, researchers estimate at least 51 million eligible U.S. citizens are unregistered, or more than 24 percent of the eligible population.
- See more at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=85899370677... -
-
Permalink Reply by LoveLife&Laughter on
-
And less than 100 fraudulent votes in 2012, mostly Republican. What's your point?
-
-
-
I was just responding. I did hear that part. Just noting that there are sources that suggest it to be more problematic than the video put it. Are the fraudulent votes just ones that have indictments or are they every instance of reportage?
When Bush and Gore had there chad counting events did the issue of getting the votes right not matter?
I am for getting it right and at the same time against creating burdens that are obviously unreasonable. You and problem have pointed this out and in both instances I am in agreement with you with the specific cases. I disagree with any of the legislation that has made things unreasonable for people to be able to vote like produce a drivers license when you don't drive. But most people do have some form of identification and it is required in many other places. Voting is important. The right feels that illegals could vote and since they tend to vote democratic it becomes a real issue. If nothing whatsoever is required to as verification it leaves it pretty wide open. Illegals would tend to vote for the party that is going to support them more coming here and not having a job.
I am just trying to state things that are.
I am open to any idea that makes it easy for every citizen to vote and be counted and assures that those that vote are valid as eligible voters.
If you argue with me you are only arguing against my premise. Do you actually disagree with my view? I am not disagreeing with yours based on the premise that I am stating. I agree with the points you have made. If the conversation turns to the republicans have done legislation that is unreasonable I accept, particularly in those instances that were noted that I am against that. I think it is stupid and wrong and detrimental. It's not hard for me to say you are right.
as I said I am on the bandwagon that suggests that we are on the same boat together. That we don't have to agree, because we may just have honest differences based on our perspectives that are not coming form the same place. If Conservatives controlled the steering of the boat and Liberals controlled the motor of the boat, the very fact that we need each other could be reason enough to motivate the civility channel. One can say that well you have to compromise, and I think there are many areas that are negotiable, but the political climate that is going right now has some very elevated energies fraught with core value differences, as should be evident just by the passionate reactions that people are having just in discussing these things around the net.
I don't want to note what I see as evidence to prove this on the dem side, not because I don't see a lot of it, but because it tends to exacerbate the feelings of those that have some confidence in that side. I just feel that if I become more of an offense than a source of investigating and sharing then I defeat some of my purposes.I don't think anyone is 100% right, but I think if people in general feel that others even on opposite sides do want many of the same things and wish the best for everyone that it helps to contribute to engaging civily.
-
-
-
the famous chad incident wasnot about voter id and people voting illegally.thus it has NOTHING to do with this matter
-
-
-
Sheesh...even the Rs admit it when they are among there own, they think it's funny.
We may still be a Republic but we're fast not being a Democracy any more.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Snagg on
-
Put it this way, A4l:
In the face of mountains of evidence, the GOP insists that climate change isn't happening and refuses to lift a finger to fight it.
In the face of 99.99999999999% evidence that it doesn't happen, the GOP nontheless insists that voter fraud is happening, all the time, right under our noses, and moves mountains (and voting district lines) to insure that only people who DON'T commit voter fraud, but would likely vote Democratic, are forbidden to vote - All in the name of FIGHTING "voting fraud".
Perhaps thou mayst detect a trend within that attitude.
-
-
-
and don't forget that one of those calls to return to the Constitution involves repealing the 17th amendment so that voters no longer would elect their senators. instead senators would be appointed by the state legislatures which is such an INCREDIBLY BAD idea. the reason for the 17th amendment was that essentially senators were in the pocket of the robber barons who were buying the state elections by pouring money into the campaigns of the candidates who would do their bidding...why, that sounds kind of like citizens united decision, doesn't it? it is a constant struggle to keep certain interests from seizing power thru money and influence (remember "if obama wins, i'm firing all of you?")
-
© 2024 Created by Aggie.
Powered by
