It's not Obama - it's the executive branch. (And the US isn't tyranny - I was arguing against the OP who was talking about tyranny) By substituting Whim and Power over Rule of Law you slowly are walking down the path towards tyranny. The US isn't a tyranny now. Not by a long shot.
If the Legislative Branch passes a law then the law needs to be followed. If one disagrees with the law then change it, or persuade others to change it by voting people out of / into office (as the case may be).
I am for the legalization of drugs. But if I was President and the law of the land required the Federal (not State) Government to consider drug procession a crime then it is my obligation, as head of the Executive Branch, to execute said laws. I would endeavor to persuade Congress and the citizenry to change their mind but I cannot chose to ignore said law because I disagreed with it.
1. A law is passed by Congress.
2. It was not vetoed by the President.
3. It was not challenged in court (or if it was it was upheld by the courts)
It is now the Executive Branch's responsibility to execute said law. It is not up to the President whether or not to act on this law. By not enforcing the law he is, in effect, vetoing the law and abrogating his constitutional responsibilities. Imagine if Eisenhower did not enforce Brown v Board of Ed?
Unlike Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower possessed, at most, a tepid commitment to human rights,...
The real problem for the administration came in the form of the civil rights movement domestically...
A clearly distressed Eisenhower was compelled to call in the National Guard to enforce the court's decision and to protect from mob violence the African American students who were scheduled to attend the high school.
So thinking that SJW are ridiculous indicates to you that I'm living in my parents basement?
I think defending rioting over Milo and screaming at people in studying in libraries for not joining their protest as an indication of supporters of SJW (like YOU) are still living in their parents basement.
I didn't say Obama was a tyrant. Not at all. But, if you're scared of the US going down the road of tyranny then having an Executive Branch that is willfully not enforcing Constitutional laws passed by Congress then yes... that is one small step down the path of tyranny.
He did not exercise sane discretion he did not follow said law. In this case the President is like a contractor who has discretion about whether to paint the molding first or the walls. He doesn't have the discretion to say that he will not paint the walls because of x, y or z.
Somalia is anarchy. There isn't rule of law; there isn't a government upholding a constitution with individual rights. So, this is a tired argument.
It is government involvement in health care (along with higher education) that has caused much of the problems.
- Insurance costs (for doctors) is a large expense. Much of it can be done away in heart beat with tort reform. The punishment for bad doctors should focus more on their being stripped of their license or jailed as opposed to higher tort fees. This would also eliminate a lot of the CYA tests.
- Insurance should not cover everything. Give me an insurance that covers accidents and illness but not everything under the sun. If the government forced your gym to provide free massages of course the price of the gym would go up.
- government forms and bureaucracy also adds a huge price. Before the doctor would write "dog bite." Now he fills out an IRS type form.
- legalize drugs and pigeon-hole the sin taxes (along with taxes on alcohol and tobacco) for rehab
There's a lot we can do.
Again. You want single-payer? Do so. Get it done in your state and prove me wrong.
Well. I'm one of those indoctrinated through libertarianism (I'm also an indoctrinator.). Yes, the nanny-state is bad; it is tyranny; and I have, and will continue to fight against it. So now, you're forced to fight millions to get single-payer instead of simply getting it for those who want to partake in it.
Millions of people could be off the "capitalist grid" if they chose to. What they prefer is to force their ideas upon everyone (Whether it's single-payer or something else.). They point to the rousing success of Venezuela -- until it collapses and then they go "well they did it wrong...."
Since I, and millions like me, will fight tooth-and-nail against you when it comes to that. Then NO. There isn't a one-size-solution.
You want single payer? OK. Do it in your state. The f**king travesty that is Obamacare comes from people trying to force their idea on everyone. That's why states have power. In the US the states are not administrative units of the Federal Government. They are their own entity. You want single payer? Good for you. Pass it in your state. Show me that it works.
You try to make it nation-wide and I will unite with others to stop you.
We have a constitution which has delegated some powers to the Federal Government and left the rest for the state along with individual rights.
Immigration is within the province of the Federal government. Not the states.
Undermining the rule of law is the first step to tyranny as at that point the only standard is force.
You want to role back Imperial Washington? Good. Roll back its powers.
You want government provided health care? Good. Do it at the state level.
You want government funding for the roads? Good. Do it at the state level.
You want government provided education? Good. Do it at the state level.
Whatever you do don't do it at the Federal level if your goal is to limited Imperial Washington.
If you want to limit Washington and you aren't limiting its powers as mentioned above... then I don't believe that you're serious about your stated goal.
Obamacare will not last - with or without Trump. It was a failure from the beginning and is not worth saving,
The best solution is to have health care on the state level. That way we don't come up with idiotic compromises between incompatible systems. If NY wants to include surgery for trans surgery and OK doesn't. Fine. Let people in those states decide.
We have laws and they ought to be followed. The hallmark of dictatorships is not following the laws or making them up as they go along.
So. We have immigration laws. Change them or follow them. We the people can petition it to be changed. Federal agencies need to follow these laws until changed.
Re prison. Yes. Let's get rid of war on drugs and use imprisonment only for violent offenders.
Dictatorship - meaning government makes up it's own laws (sanctuary cities) and doesn't follow the laws on the books if they don't like them. (Obama saying he won't following existing immigration law.)
Yeah. You're right we were on the way to a dictatorship.
There are clothing stores where people returned dresses or suits after wearing them. How do you as a store owner deal with that? On the retail level it's you buy it - it's yours.
When people try to return it you examine it. Some don't even have the decency to dry clean the clothes which smell like perfume, smoke and body odor; others don't empty their pockets (condoms, receipts). And then some of these guys start screaming that the clothes aren't returnable. Police are called. They look at the clothes and tell the people they have to leave. Meanwhile other customers shopping experience are ruined and you've lost sales.
My wife and some of her friends opened up clothing stores (now long closed). I've witnessed more than one of these exchanges.
The papacy, however was 100% against that, as it said that principalities could chose not to part of the res publica Christiana.. This was a compromised used to avoid bloodshed after the worst of the Wars of Religion was over. From our perspective it may sound weird, in the same way that "an eye for an eye" sounds weird. An eye for an eye was justice that prevented clan warfare (thing Montagues v Capulets).
Rapes. Acid Attacks. Machete attacks. That's different. Being aggressively abusive about your adopted country calling people "Pig Eaters" (This is Germany not England).
You used to have the trope of the "Ugly American." Now the new reality is the Ugly Immigrant
First in Christianity there are scriptural distinctions between church and state: "Render onto Caesar that which is Caesars..." Second there is Gelasius' Two Swords theory.
Except in very few places for very short times there were always secular and ecumenical leaders - and if you knew your history you would now that there was violence at times between the two.
The Caliphate is something that has NEVER existed in Christianity. (And if you bring up the Papacy you obviously have very limited knowledge of Western Civilization and how it was structured.)
Slashdot Mirror
Right now Europe is collapsing under it's own. Maybe Tunisia will let Europe keep it's independence.
Doubt it.
You do realize that Arabs are considered to be "white" and not "brown".
Oops wrong! You forgot to include the Libertarian and Conservative candidates.
Not only did Trump,/Johnson/ McMullin beat Hillary/Stein in MI, PA, WI but also states which went to Hillary. See: Colorado and New Mexico and Nevada.
It is my understanding that the President CANNOT chose which law to act on and which law to ignore.
Haven't time to do an in depth search proving why not - but here is a series of answers to that very question:
https://politics.stackexchange...
It's not Obama - it's the executive branch. (And the US isn't tyranny - I was arguing against the OP who was talking about tyranny) By substituting Whim and Power over Rule of Law you slowly are walking down the path towards tyranny. The US isn't a tyranny now. Not by a long shot.
If the Legislative Branch passes a law then the law needs to be followed. If one disagrees with the law then change it, or persuade others to change it by voting people out of / into office (as the case may be).
I am for the legalization of drugs. But if I was President and the law of the land required the Federal (not State) Government to consider drug procession a crime then it is my obligation, as head of the Executive Branch, to execute said laws. I would endeavor to persuade Congress and the citizenry to change their mind but I cannot chose to ignore said law because I disagreed with it.
1. A law is passed by Congress.
2. It was not vetoed by the President.
3. It was not challenged in court (or if it was it was upheld by the courts)
It is now the Executive Branch's responsibility to execute said law. It is not up to the President whether or not to act on this law. By not enforcing the law he is, in effect, vetoing the law and abrogating his constitutional responsibilities. Imagine if Eisenhower did not enforce Brown v Board of Ed?
Unlike Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower possessed, at most, a tepid commitment to human rights, ... ...
The real problem for the administration came in the form of the civil rights movement domestically
A clearly distressed Eisenhower was compelled to call in the National Guard to enforce the court's decision and to protect from mob violence the African American students who were scheduled to attend the high school.
Read more: http://www.americanforeignrela...
Nah. Sorry. I'm a parent. My parents are gone.
So thinking that SJW are ridiculous indicates to you that I'm living in my parents basement?
I think defending rioting over Milo and screaming at people in studying in libraries for not joining their protest as an indication of supporters of SJW (like YOU) are still living in their parents basement.
I didn't say Obama was a tyrant. Not at all. But, if you're scared of the US going down the road of tyranny then having an Executive Branch that is willfully not enforcing Constitutional laws passed by Congress then yes ... that is one small step down the path of tyranny.
He did not exercise sane discretion he did not follow said law. In this case the President is like a contractor who has discretion about whether to paint the molding first or the walls. He doesn't have the discretion to say that he will not paint the walls because of x, y or z.
Somalia is anarchy. There isn't rule of law; there isn't a government upholding a constitution with individual rights. So, this is a tired argument.
It is government involvement in health care (along with higher education) that has caused much of the problems.
- Insurance costs (for doctors) is a large expense. Much of it can be done away in heart beat with tort reform. The punishment for bad doctors should focus more on their being stripped of their license or jailed as opposed to higher tort fees. This would also eliminate a lot of the CYA tests.
- Insurance should not cover everything. Give me an insurance that covers accidents and illness but not everything under the sun. If the government forced your gym to provide free massages of course the price of the gym would go up.
- government forms and bureaucracy also adds a huge price. Before the doctor would write "dog bite." Now he fills out an IRS type form.
- legalize drugs and pigeon-hole the sin taxes (along with taxes on alcohol and tobacco) for rehab
There's a lot we can do.
Again. You want single-payer? Do so. Get it done in your state and prove me wrong.
Well. I'm one of those indoctrinated through libertarianism (I'm also an indoctrinator.). Yes, the nanny-state is bad; it is tyranny; and I have, and will continue to fight against it. So now, you're forced to fight millions to get single-payer instead of simply getting it for those who want to partake in it.
Millions of people could be off the "capitalist grid" if they chose to. What they prefer is to force their ideas upon everyone (Whether it's single-payer or something else.). They point to the rousing success of Venezuela -- until it collapses and then they go "well they did it wrong...."
Since I, and millions like me, will fight tooth-and-nail against you when it comes to that. Then NO. There isn't a one-size-solution.
You want single payer? OK. Do it in your state. The f**king travesty that is Obamacare comes from people trying to force their idea on everyone. That's why states have power. In the US the states are not administrative units of the Federal Government. They are their own entity. You want single payer? Good for you. Pass it in your state. Show me that it works.
You try to make it nation-wide and I will unite with others to stop you.
Sorry. Rule of Law.
... then I don't believe that you're serious about your stated goal.
We have a constitution which has delegated some powers to the Federal Government and left the rest for the state along with individual rights.
Immigration is within the province of the Federal government. Not the states.
Undermining the rule of law is the first step to tyranny as at that point the only standard is force.
You want to role back Imperial Washington? Good. Roll back its powers.
You want government provided health care? Good. Do it at the state level.
You want government funding for the roads? Good. Do it at the state level.
You want government provided education? Good. Do it at the state level.
Whatever you do don't do it at the Federal level if your goal is to limited Imperial Washington.
If you want to limit Washington and you aren't limiting its powers as mentioned above
Obamacare will not last - with or without Trump. It was a failure from the beginning and is not worth saving,
The best solution is to have health care on the state level. That way we don't come up with idiotic compromises between incompatible systems. If NY wants to include surgery for trans surgery and OK doesn't. Fine. Let people in those states decide.
There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
We don't want you to think too hard about the children. Pervert.
Not a stupid argument. At least I don't think so.
We have laws and they ought to be followed. The hallmark of dictatorships is not following the laws or making them up as they go along. So. We have immigration laws. Change them or follow them. We the people can petition it to be changed. Federal agencies need to follow these laws until changed.
Re prison. Yes. Let's get rid of war on drugs and use imprisonment only for violent offenders.
Which I had mod points for that.
Two thumbs up.
Ok. Then I'll say it.
You know what an SJW is. I know what an SJW is. It is a fully descriptive term. And they and their actions are worth calling out to shame and mock.
I fully endorse the above quote.
What?
Dictatorship - meaning government makes up it's own laws (sanctuary cities) and doesn't follow the laws on the books if they don't like them. (Obama saying he won't following existing immigration law.)
Yeah. You're right we were on the way to a dictatorship.
There are clothing stores where people returned dresses or suits after wearing them. How do you as a store owner deal with that? On the retail level it's you buy it - it's yours.
When people try to return it you examine it. Some don't even have the decency to dry clean the clothes which smell like perfume, smoke and body odor; others don't empty their pockets (condoms, receipts). And then some of these guys start screaming that the clothes aren't returnable. Police are called. They look at the clothes and tell the people they have to leave. Meanwhile other customers shopping experience are ruined and you've lost sales.
My wife and some of her friends opened up clothing stores (now long closed). I've witnessed more than one of these exchanges.
Except if true. Right?
Are you saying that this is not happening?
The papacy, however was 100% against that, as it said that principalities could chose not to part of the res publica Christiana.. This was a compromised used to avoid bloodshed after the worst of the Wars of Religion was over. From our perspective it may sound weird, in the same way that "an eye for an eye" sounds weird. An eye for an eye was justice that prevented clan warfare (thing Montagues v Capulets).
And what about atheists? Kill them?
Different backgrounds?
If that was it you would be correct?
Rapes. Acid Attacks. Machete attacks. That's different. Being aggressively abusive about your adopted country calling people "Pig Eaters" (This is Germany not England).
You used to have the trope of the "Ugly American." Now the new reality is the Ugly Immigrant
You think it sounds good? To me it sounds like Civil War.
Only a f**king idiot thinks this is a good idea or would troll about it. 20 years ago it may have been laughably improbable.
Today. Unfortunately it looks like a distinct possibility.
Christian Caliphate. Now you're the ignorant one.
..." Second there is Gelasius' Two Swords theory.
First in Christianity there are scriptural distinctions between church and state: "Render onto Caesar that which is Caesars
Except in very few places for very short times there were always secular and ecumenical leaders - and if you knew your history you would now that there was violence at times between the two.
The Caliphate is something that has NEVER existed in Christianity. (And if you bring up the Papacy you obviously have very limited knowledge of Western Civilization and how it was structured.)