rickjump1 0 #151 October 22, 2008 Quote>I choose to use Barack Hussein Obama's full name because . . . So you cannot answer the question. Got it. Its all of the above; just like I said. Are you fishing for something?Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #152 October 22, 2008 QuoteQuote>Please. I'm on focus. Then why can't you answer a simple question? I choose to use Barack Hussein Obama's full name because it certainly jerks your chain, and because it gets the readers attention. The full name of the person who intends to destroy the 2nd amendent should be spoken clearly and loudly so there will be no question as to his identity. Perhaps you are unaware of the 3 branches of gov, the executive has the least ability of all to legislate. Even if he did want to kill the 2nd, he would be powerless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #153 October 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote>Please. I'm on focus. Then why can't you answer a simple question? I choose to use Barack Hussein Obama's full name because it certainly jerks your chain, and because it gets the readers attention. The full name of the person who intends to destroy the 2nd amendent should be spoken clearly and loudly so there will be no question as to his identity. Perhaps you are unaware of the 3 branches of gov, the executive has the least ability of all to legislate. Even if he did want to kill the 2nd, he would be powerless. Lucky, don't you think the public should know how a future pres. stands on certain issues? I am aware of the 3 branches of gov. thanks. There is also the chance that congress will give the next pres. everything he asks for.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #154 October 22, 2008 Quote There is also the chance that congress will give the next pres. everything he asks for. a rare event, but it did happen for a year in 2001-2002. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #155 October 22, 2008 >Are you fishing for something? Just seeing if you can answer the question, but as I suspected you cannot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #156 October 22, 2008 QuoteWhat is the CONNECTION between Obama's middle name and the 2nd Amendment issue? He makes no connection - why all the angst?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #157 October 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote>Please. I'm on focus. Then why can't you answer a simple question? I choose to use Barack Hussein Obama's full name because it certainly jerks your chain, and because it gets the readers attention. The full name of the person who intends to destroy the 2nd amendent should be spoken clearly and loudly so there will be no question as to his identity. Perhaps you are unaware of the 3 branches of gov, the executive has the least ability of all to legislate. Even if he did want to kill the 2nd, he would be powerless. Ah, I see... so, y'all keep blaming everything that goes wrong on Bush, why?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #158 October 22, 2008 Quote Perhaps you are unaware of the 3 branches of gov, the executive has the least ability of all to legislate. In theory. In practice the president has the most legislative power when his desires aren't too numerous or fall into a number of big spaces where congress has ceded authority. You should be aprehensive about this regardless of what your politics are because the other party is going to get its turn and effectively pass laws you disagree with. 1) The president can kick bills back to congress where a near 50-50 split along party lines makes it impossible to get a veto-proof super majority and allow them through once they include his pet provisions, with 51% of Congress agreeing once there's enough in it for enough of them and their districts. Clinton got his 1994 ban passed this way, with HR3355 growing to 19,000 lines of text before enough Congress critters would vote "Yea" on it with the ban intact. 2) Congress has ceded legislative authority to various entities both separate (the FCC) and a part of (the Treasury Department) the Executive branch where the heads are appointed by the president. They call the legislation "rule making" but in my mind anything which can send you to jail or subject your assets to seizure is effectively a "law." For example, Congress left the Treasury Department in charge of what firearms could be imported. In 1989 president Bush implemented an import ban by telling them what could be imported. Congress left the FCC in charge of who gets broadcast licenses, with its head appointed by the president. They've effectively legislated against free speech by granting monopolies to a small number of news outlets, restricted dissent by limiting affordable low-power licenses, and moved towards a state religion (theism) by preferentially granting licenses to religous organizations. Congress left the FDA (part of the executive branch) in charge of treating food animals for diseases. They've made it illegal to sell beef which has been tested for mad cow disease. Quote Even if he did want to kill the 2nd, he would be powerless. Bush 41 and Clinton both demonstrated this isn't the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyfast1966 0 #159 October 22, 2008 No matter what all the other supporters think , obama is a much better person to led this country. What take a chance that Mcain would die in office and let the confused pailin run the country, yea right. give me a break. Obama will win and thank GOD . Our country needs him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #160 October 22, 2008 Quote No matter what all the other supporters think , obama is a much better person to led this country. What take a chance that Mcain would die in office and let the confused pailin run the country, yea right. give me a break. Obama will win and thank GOD . Our country needs him. That would be the 'confused Palin' that *STILL* has more executive experience than the person you are advocating for President, yes?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #161 October 22, 2008 Quote That would be the 'confused Palin' that *STILL* has more executive experience than the person you are advocating for President, yes? But less than 18 city mayors in the country. Far less given the same party legislature and no need to worry about balancing the budget. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #162 October 22, 2008 Quote Quote No matter what all the other supporters think , obama is a much better person to led this country. What take a chance that Mcain would die in office and let the confused pailin run the country, yea right. give me a break. Obama will win and thank GOD . Our country needs him. That would be the 'confused Palin' that *STILL* has more executive experience than the person you are advocating for President, yes? Richard M. Daley has far far far more executive experience than Palin, so following that logic, I guess you'd find him a more acceptable VP than Palin.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #163 October 22, 2008 Quote Quote Quote No matter what all the other supporters think , obama is a much better person to led this country. What take a chance that Mcain would die in office and let the confused pailin run the country, yea right. give me a break. Obama will win and thank GOD . Our country needs him. That would be the 'confused Palin' that *STILL* has more executive experience than the person you are advocating for President, yes? Richard M. Daley has far far far more executive experience than Palin, so following that logic, I guess you'd find him a more acceptable VP than Palin. He'd fit in just fine with Obama's Chicago machine.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #164 October 22, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote No matter what all the other supporters think , obama is a much better person to led this country. What take a chance that Mcain would die in office and let the confused pailin run the country, yea right. give me a break. Obama will win and thank GOD . Our country needs him. That would be the 'confused Palin' that *STILL* has more executive experience than the person you are advocating for President, yes? Richard M. Daley has far far far more executive experience than Palin, so following that logic, I guess you'd find him a more acceptable VP than Palin. He'd fit in just fine with Obama's Chicago machine. Can't answer the question, eh?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #165 October 22, 2008 Quote Quote No matter what all the other supporters think , obama is a much better person to led this country. What take a chance that Mcain would die in office and let the confused pailin run the country, yea right. give me a break. Obama will win and thank GOD . Our country needs him. That would be the 'confused Palin' that *STILL* has more executive experience than the person you are advocating for President, yes? I guess what people are saying, Mike, boils down to a simple formula: Palin's executive experience = lipstick on a pig. It's still a little piggie! And you know what? Everyone outside The Blogosphere understands that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #166 October 22, 2008 QuotePerhaps you are unaware of the 3 branches of gov, the executive has the least ability of all to legislate. Even if he did want to kill the 2nd, he would be powerless. Bill Clinton managed to skirt around those lack of executive powers to inflict a great number of serious restrictions on gun rights, through threat of lawsuits, trade agreements, and other means. Give the liberals control of both the House and Senate, and there is no anti-gun Bill that Barack Hussein Obama won't eagerly sign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #167 October 22, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote No matter what all the other supporters think , obama is a much better person to led this country. What take a chance that Mcain would die in office and let the confused pailin run the country, yea right. give me a break. Obama will win and thank GOD . Our country needs him. That would be the 'confused Palin' that *STILL* has more executive experience than the person you are advocating for President, yes? Richard M. Daley has far far far more executive experience than Palin, so following that logic, I guess you'd find him a more acceptable VP than Palin. He'd fit in just fine with Obama's Chicago machine. Can't answer the question, eh? I did answer the question - just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it invalid. I know there's not much difference between the parties anymore, but if you were SERIOUS about Daley being offered a REPUBLICAN VP slot, well....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #168 October 22, 2008 Quote Quote Quote No matter what all the other supporters think , obama is a much better person to led this country. What take a chance that Mcain would die in office and let the confused pailin run the country, yea right. give me a break. Obama will win and thank GOD . Our country needs him. That would be the 'confused Palin' that *STILL* has more executive experience than the person you are advocating for President, yes? I guess what people are saying, Mike, boils down to a simple formula: Palin's executive experience = lipstick on a pig. It's still a little piggie! And you know what? Everyone outside The Blogosphere understands that. And Obama doesn't have either the lipstick OR the pig - so what's your point? Nice to see one of y'all finally admitting the Palin smear for what it was, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #169 October 22, 2008 Quote In theory. In practice the president has the most legislative power when his desires aren't too numerous or fall into a number of big spaces where congress has ceded authority. You should be aprehensive about this regardless of what your politics are because the other party is going to get its turn and effectively pass laws you disagree with. Concur. Concentration of power in any branch (executive has been the current trend over the last 30 or so years) is of concern to me. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #170 October 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Please. I'm on focus. Then why can't you answer a simple question? I choose to use Barack Hussein Obama's full name because it certainly jerks your chain, and because it gets the readers attention. The full name of the person who intends to destroy the 2nd amendent should be spoken clearly and loudly so there will be no question as to his identity. Perhaps you are unaware of the 3 branches of gov, the executive has the least ability of all to legislate. Even if he did want to kill the 2nd, he would be powerless. Lucky, don't you think the public should know how a future pres. stands on certain issues? I am aware of the 3 branches of gov. thanks. There is also the chance that congress will give the next pres. everything he asks for. How about the very recent Heller decision that is totally not in line with objective reasoning of the 2nd, but none the less a victory for us pro-gunners? The new pres and congress can pass all the laws they want, but case law runs supreme to it all. The Scotus are supreme legislatorys, it just takes them longer. It is fear mongering hype to worry that Obama has his sights on our guns, esp when the alternative is 20T debt in 2 terms of McCain and more class disparity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #171 October 22, 2008 QuoteQuote There is also the chance that congress will give the next pres. everything he asks for. a rare event, but it did happen for a year in 2001-2002. And then from 2001-somehwere in mid 2006. Bush didn't veto anything from congress for the 1st 5.5 years. Then when he did, it was a stem cell research bill that congress wanted to fund. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #172 October 22, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote >Please. I'm on focus. Then why can't you answer a simple question? I choose to use Barack Hussein Obama's full name because it certainly jerks your chain, and because it gets the readers attention. The full name of the person who intends to destroy the 2nd amendent should be spoken clearly and loudly so there will be no question as to his identity. Perhaps you are unaware of the 3 branches of gov, the executive has the least ability of all to legislate. Even if he did want to kill the 2nd, he would be powerless. Ah, I see... so, y'all keep blaming everything that goes wrong on Bush, why? Where, in your wildest imagination, do you draw anything about Bush in there? Here, I'll clarify it: Perhaps you are unaware of the 3 branches of gov, the executive has the least ability of all to legislate. Even if he (OBAMA) did want to kill the 2nd, he (OBAMA) would be powerless. See what happens when ya jump into the end of a thread? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #173 October 22, 2008 Must be some OTHER Lucky that goes on and on about how Bush did this and Bush did that, I suppose.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #174 October 22, 2008 >>>>>>>>>>>>In practice the president has the most legislative power when his desires aren't too numerous or fall into a number of big spaces where congress has ceded authority. I'll concede that the pres has a lot of temporary power, esp on issues that congress hasn't addressed. But on a SCOTUS issue that has been addressed a bunch of times, and recent decision (Heller) handed down that supports private gun ownership and really leaglizes it, I don't see how a president could override that. As well, even if he did have his sights set on the 2nd, he would have to go after it like Bush did the Overtime Bill set to law at the end of his first term. The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act is much easier to change than an amendment from the BOR's, that has been recently decided, so this is not a hole in the law where congress and the SCOTUS have shrugged and walked away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clinton got his 1994 ban passed this way, with HR3355 growing to 19,000 lines of text before enough Congress critters would vote "Yea" on it with the ban intact. I think the anti-assault rifle ban was ripe for signing as well, and don't forget, GHWB had his NRA card pulled for some of that same shit and GWB said he would have signed the AR Ban if it came to him, so gun banning is somewhat bipartisan, the Dems lean a little more. With the R's fucking away the total US economy over the last 28 years, I think Obama has a lot more to contend with than banning guns, even if that is his pet. If he wants to ensure he's a 1-term president, he should ignore the horrific economy and go after guns, that way he'll be done in all of politics. Let's be real, this is more fear mongering from the RW trying to find an angle to get pro-gun Dems away from voting for Obama. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bush 41 and Clinton both demonstrated this isn't the case. Killing the 2nd and barely limiting it are different animals. And don't forget, the marriage between fascist America and it's girlfriend the US corporation was exhibited when Colt agreed to quit making some guns forever. In the end, it's all hype. Do I like the Dems stance on gun ownership? No. Do gund make the US more deadly? OF course. Do I think we should have the right to own them anyway? Yes. Even if we knew Obama would go after them, should we elect the fascist Bush clone so as not to take a chance on the 2nd? Hell no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #175 October 22, 2008 Quote Quote No matter what all the other supporters think , obama is a much better person to led this country. What take a chance that Mcain would die in office and let the confused pailin run the country, yea right. give me a break. Obama will win and thank GOD . Our country needs him. That would be the 'confused Palin' that *STILL* has more executive experience than the person you are advocating for President, yes? Executive over a town of 7k (rolls eyes). Executive over a state of the smallest population or damn near... for 20 months.... has demonstrated continual corruption.... yea, what a gal She couldn't even do better than 3rd in a state beauty contest and took her what 5 or more schools to get a simple BA in Journalism .... what a gal Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
