Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- ********0
President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erik…“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the president said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
BS!
- Ramanisky20
Bachmann ends GOP presidential bid .... Good .. Finally !!!
- all a ploy to gain popularity and down the road monies. Never had a chance and she knew it.********
- her gay husband got himself a nice little Herp on the lip though.
campaigning is stressful after allRamanisky2 - yep. don't like her********
- all a ploy to gain popularity and down the road monies. Never had a chance and she knew it.
- ********0
Tehran warns U.S. to stay out of Gulf
Tough talk seen as sanctions backlash
http://www.washingtontimes.com/n…
what a crock of shit
- Washington Times is owned by a religious cult. Find better sources JazX.DrBombay
- JazX only approves of Republican presidents going to war with muslims...TheBlueOne
- ..then it's patriotic. If a democrat does it they're unamerican.TheBlueOne
- If President McCain was rattling the Iranian sabers he'd ba all "America, fuck yeah!"TheBlueOne
- So, he's a douchebag.TheBlueOne
- mg330
After the Iowa results last night, I'm only reminded of how divisive Republicans are in general. At least a few of them last night talked about "taking back America," (from Obama, I presume) which should come across as ridiculously possessive to anyone paying attention. They don't want to change the country for everyone; they want to change it for their own means to meet their own goals.
I get that any candidate is going to have goals and ways of accomplishing them, but the wording just always pisses me off.
- "taking back America" is the divide part of "divide and conquer"locustsloth
- rhetoric along side the yellow journalism that is prevalent these days********
- You post Washtimes articles, asshole. More biased than Fox.DrBombay
- bliznutty0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20…
so Obama signs the NDAA (even though apparently he didn't like it) - but he 'promises' that he won't enforce it in any dictatorial fashion even though it is designed that way...
uhhh HELLO?!? you do realize that Obama's term as president is limited? is he promising us that future presidents won't enforce this act as well? Answer: FUCK NO
when you step out of the left/right paradigm you see that they are both working together.. like 2 legs of the same body marching towards a common goal... and guess what that common goal is you gullable bastards? securing you against terrorism? think again
- HOPE! you will not get detained indefinitelyzaq
- < this! And i still cant see the purpose of this bill except for US citizens. Not like the law stopped the prev so called terrorist detainment********
- terrorist detainments.********
- but yea both sides have the same motives. Clever illusion of choice********
- drgs0
- 20120
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/poli…
25,000 turned out to vote for Obama in Iowa yesterday even though he was running unopposed. He got almost as many votes as Romney and Santorum, and the same as Ron Paul.
- of course, it's in Iowa. Land of the brainwashed sheep********
- it's also been a blue state for the past many years. Ohhh those big 6 electorals. psshhhh********
- of course, it's in Iowa. Land of the brainwashed sheep
- utopian0
- where'd you get that from Obama.com? oh wait: http://www.barackoba…********
- a fucking blog post from the Manchurian Candidate him fucking self********
- I guess you forgot about the 9% unemployment rate, which we all know is a lot more than that********
- you also forget about the Solyndra debacle? http://www.solyndra.…http://www.nytimes.c…********
- ha, dude said solyndra. Halliburton blew right by you in the 2000's though, right?DrBombay
- I'm not referring to Haliburton (by no means clean group) albeit a profitable company Solyndra is dead.********
- Solyndra was doomed from the start, under BHO your tax dollars were used anyway. Face facts.********
- You said BHO, wow are you a shitty troll. Die in a fire.DrBombay
- where'd you get that from Obama.com? oh wait: http://www.barackoba…
- ********0
@bliznutty
That’s one version. Here’s another. A country dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the State is all. The individual held as evil, the race – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the race. Am I raving or is this the harsh reality of two continents already ? If you’re sick of one version, we push you in the other. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads – collectivism. Tails – collectivism. Give up your soul to a council – or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. Offer poison as food and poison as antidote. Go fancy on the trimmings, but hang on to the main objective. Give the fools a chance, let them have their fun – but don’t forget the only purpose you have to accomplish. Kill the individual. Kill man’s soul. The rest will follow automatically."
The whole idea of leaving 2 choices of poison as an antidote or jsut poison. rigged game.
Of course quoting ayn rand writing is looked at as something ignorant or wrong but Tooheys speech in fountainhead seems pretty spot on about ways methods people choose to rule. the whole segment here
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-an…
- ********0
Mike and Chantell Sackett vs. the EPA
The couple wanted to build a picturesque Idaho home. Instead they were accused of building on a wetland. Now the Supreme Court will hear their case
http://www.businessweek.com/maga…The Sacketts say they were stunned. The owners of an excavation company, they had secured all the necessary local permits. And Chantell Sackett says that before work began, she drove two hours to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, to consult with an Army Corps of Engineers official. She says the official told her orally, though not in writing, that she didn’t need a federal permit. “We did all the right things,” she says.
The bottom line: The Supreme Court could turn a minor land dispute between an Idaho couple and the EPA into a far-reaching case on government power.
- good jsut like bush saying bald eagle isnt endangered so his buddy could build on protected land. fuckers!74LEO
- actually the Bald Eagle is no longer endangered, on the Least Concern list, but you can't shoot them.********
- http://en.wikipedia.…********
- but I see your point********
- locustsloth0
^
Army Corp of Engineers and/or the town office that issued the permits should be on the line for this. They either need to defend their position that the land was ok to build on, or refute that the couple went through the proper channels. Being that he is in the excavation business, it's possible he found a way to circumvent what he needed to do and the oral permission (rather than written) is a convenient way of claiming plausible deniability.
i'm guessing there's a lot more to this than the article touches on.- you might be right, but the fact that this dispute reached the Supreme Court, says something.********
- That this couple are insufferable douchebags.waterhouse
- but if they, indeed, did due diligence, how are they assholes? The system is far from infalliblelocustsloth
- sorry, "douchebags". Taking reesposibility for ones actions extends to the govt toolocustsloth
- if the EPA f'd up, they should compensate these people for the money they spent. And their time too, to some degreelocustsloth
- Local permit office should have known about it if it was wetlands. That's either the EPA's or the office's faultlocustsloth
- Finding culpability with the Army Corp would be a little more tricky as there is no paperwork on the matterlocustsloth
- Some responsibility falls on the Sacketts for not getting it all in writinglocustsloth
- If she travelled 2 hours to the Army Corp, she must have at lease SUSPECTED that there may have been restrictionslocustsloth
- I agree locustsloth. why are they assholes for not knowing the EPA declared this protected, after the fact?********
- BTW, the article states they are being fined or could be for something that isn't their fault per se. Crazy********
- you might be right, but the fact that this dispute reached the Supreme Court, says something.
- locustsloth0
A couple interesting things about the EPA story from the Washington Post:
( http://www.washingtonpost.com/po… )"A coalition of environmental groups, using documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, is attempting to present “another side” of the story to the court.
They say documents from the Sacketts themselves indicate that they learned early on that there was a good chance their lot contained wetlands. “Petitioners chose to ignore the options available to them,” says the brief, prepared by the Natural Resources Defense Council and others, and decided to escalate a legal battle rather than negotiate for a permit to build. "
The Sacketts are seeking to suppress this.
Also:
"The agency subsequently issued a compliance order to the Sacketts, saying the site must be restored to its natural state before construction began. Failure to follow the orders could make the couple liable for fines up to $37,500 a day, an amount that would be nearly $15,000 more than they paid for the lot.The EPA contends that was a starting point for negotiations. Obtaining an exception to build is often available for far less than the Sacketts have spent on legal fees, the agency said."
So it kind of sounds like instead of going though the proper channels (obtaining an exception), they decided to make a fight out of it. This, along with this picture:
pull me over toward waterhouse's assertion a bit. Though there's still plenty of blame to be given to the EPA
- Also, fines aren't being levied until there's a decision, so if they're in the right, they pay nothinglocustsloth
- don't let facts deter your govt outrage
BonSeff - Population density is 21people per sq mi. That is a situation rife with possibilities of rural cronyismlocustsloth
- That's one-tenth the density of my town, and i know it happens herelocustsloth
- (this is all speculation and conjecture, of course)locustsloth
- oh, that's the COUNTY'S pop density, not just that town. Even worselocustsloth
- I'm just bringing up the fact that this is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. Seems very dodgy.********
- Fines are more than likely not going to be levied, who the FUCK is the EPA though, some bureaucrats named by politicians?********
- political figures and heads. WTF is that? Who oversees this shit?********
- What I meant was, who the hell is heading it? This fucking cow? http://blog.epa.gov/…********
- Hmmm no Tweets about this case, interesting: https://twitter.com/…********
- why would she tweet about an ongoing court case? It's pretty standard procedure to be mum about it until a decision is reachedlocustsloth
- reached.locustsloth
- bliznutty0
regarding the NDAA and the government's continuous fight for power - its not a physical fight like Hitler did - its a strategic incremental process in which the people will give up their liberties in replace for 'security'. this whole terrorism thing is setting the fear (hook), where these NDAA acts are the security (line), and the enforcement of these laws against the same complicit people (sinker).
the main thing here is.. it is a fallacy to believe the enablers of these security acts (like NDAA), are a representation of your ideals. Is the NDAA democrat? Is it Republican? Exactly.. there is no line drawn when it comes to Security vs. Liberty.. the government always chooses Security regardless of platform. When people talk of the illusion of choice and the slaughterhouse.. its not hard to see. Obama signed the NDAA, Bush signed the Patriot Act, blah blah.. All these acts are created as a reserve power solution for whatever crisis awaits us.. and for whoever is in charge at the time
- So what's our solution? (a question easier asked than answered, obviously)locustsloth
- some scary shit, no matter which side is calling the shots********
- he should ask, if he doesn't have an answer?zaq
- the solution is for all you gang-related party affiliates to stop spilling bullshit on how your evil better than the otherbliznutty
- BonSeff0
pick a position, jazx.. you post articles to incite outrage, then you get called on it, and you are like, I agree, it's dodgy..
- would it be better if he ignored facts when presented with them?locustsloth
- is that a rhetorical question?BonSeff
- No, it's not. You can either complain about him ignoring facts, or complain about him shifting positions. Not both.locustsloth
- If you'll notice, BonSeff, panacea acts somewhat reasonably when treated reasonably.locustsloth
- his M/O has been the same since day one. but once again, thanks for weighing inBonSeff
- But seriously, BonSeff, would you rather he post articles that speak to his values and then pull back from his position after confronted, or would you rather he post and keep beating the point regardless of the facts to the contrary?locustsloth
- confronted, or would you rather he post and keep beating the point regardless of the facts to the contrary?locustsloth
- Because it seems like you just want to be against him, no matter what he says, which is odd to melocustsloth
- i may have agreed with 4 posts he has posted in the last 9 years.BonSeff
- most of the time he has no idea what he is even posting. its just a repost from some "BHO" blog he follows.BonSeff
- its disingenuous and annoying as fuck.BonSeff
- Put isn't refuting the points a more productive tact? As noted, it elicits a much different reaction from himlocustsloth
- i mean, maybe you enjoy the conflict, i don't know. Taking an even handed, objective approach agrees with me morelocustsloth
- To each his own, i supposelocustsloth
- No one should be interested in getting a good response out of a troll.DrBombay
- Everyone should be interested in the possibility of getting a good response from anyonelocustsloth
- ********0
Obama Administration Tests Constitutional Power After Controversial Appointment
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/…The U.S. Chamber of Commerce may sue the Obama administration over President Obama's controversial appointment of Richard Cordray to head a controversial consumer financial board, officials from the business group told Fox News on Wednesday after an unprecedented display of executive power that is sure to poison already-strained relations with the GOP.
Here's some more of it for you all. Where's the public outrage? Does the government really need to get any bigger than it already fucking is?
- http://www.nypost.co…********
- Heart this on NPR this morning, half awake. Thought it was about Rob Cordry of the Daily Show! http://ia.media-imdb…mg33
- HAHA i kept thinking the same thing mglocustsloth
- I hadn't thought that, but it's funny
:-)********
- http://www.nypost.co…
- locustsloth0
So why was the GOP blocking him? His focus is going to be going after non-bank financial institutions, the ones that helped cause the crisis we are currently in.
And the only reason that anyone can even BE outraged about this is that 'technically' the Congress was not in recess. But that's only because one person has been coming in for like 10mins, convening and then closing the session. If the appointment is bullshit, this procedure surely should be considered to be as well.
- more than likely because a load of GOP members have their hands dirty, not that DEMs don't. I'm sure many of********
- them also hate it. Dirty hands as well, jealousy or something along those lines.********
- more than likely because a load of GOP members have their hands dirty, not that DEMs don't. I'm sure many of
- ********0
^
But Obama is the first president to declare that he, and he alone, can decide whether the Senate — which must confirm his appointments — is actually meeting.In order to block recess appointments, the Senate intentionally has been holding pro forma sessions every few days, each of which lasts only a few seconds.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — with then-Sen. Obama’s support — did the same thing in 2007 to block any recess appointments by President George W. Bush.
But now Obama, with Reid’s concurrence, contends that such sessions are actually “gimmicks” — and that the Senate actually is in recess.
So much for the separation of powers and the carefully calibrated system of checks and balances that are hallmarks of the US constitutional system.
- something stinks, don't it folks********
- the whole thing, not just Obama's actions, stinks. Pro-forma, my ass.locustsloth
- They complain that he does nothing while assuring at every turn that he can't.locustsloth
- Then they bitch when he actually grows some 'nads and takes charge. FUCK i hate politicslocustsloth
- it's a sad state dude. I see where you're coming from********
- yeah how is "pro forma" to be defined as well? making the rules for themselves. BS********
- Get rid of pro-forma, get rid of recess appointments. DONE! Fucking children.locustsloth
- yeah but locust, they do it knowing damn well that it works for them ALL! Problem #1.********
- why would they take that out, if both sides know they'll need it in the future, when things flip cyclically!? such crap********
- Totally. There is no motivation to change the way things are internally.locustsloth
- And that is a legit reason, IMO, for protest. Just have a clear and succinct message.********
- I think he's done this fewer times than any pres since Reagan...why the outrage?monkeyshine
- we are talking about NOW, FFS!??!?!?!?********
- something stinks, don't it folks
