My definition of the current Republican Party?

link to today's slavery

 

Yes. I surely see where the views and mindsets of many are 'linked' to or intellectually enslaved by the smoothly-spoken promises and piety of today's Republicans.

 

Prosecutorial discretion? No, the law is the law and the President takes an oath to uphold it, not make it. This President does not seem to understand separation of powers.

- - - Updated - - -

Link please where Democrats are even trying.

 

Correct. You have presented a Strawman. You posted a response that has nothing to do with my comment on Republican Greed. Instead you attempt to post a Strawman which is a subtype of the Red Herring.This fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument.

For instance, one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning welfare. The opponent argues, "Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn children." The second speaker retorts, "My opponent believes that some parasites who don't work should get a free ride from the tax money of hard-working honest citizens. I'll show you why he's wrong . . ." In this example, the second speaker is engaging in a straw man strategy, distorting the opposition's statement about medical care for newborn children into an oversimplified form so he can more easily appear to "win." However, the second speaker is only defeating a dummy-argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate.

You've also presented a classic Non Sequitur (literally, "It does not follow"): A non sequitur is any argument that does not follow from the previous statements. Usually what happened is that the writer leaped from A to B and then jumped to D, leaving out step C of an argument she thought through in her head, but did not put down on paper. The phrase is applicable in general to any type of logical fallacy, but logicians use the term particularly in reference to syllogistic errors such as the undistributed middle term, non causa pro causa, and ignorantio elenchi. A common example would be an argument along these lines: "Giving up our nuclear arsenal in the 1980's weakened the United States' military. Giving up nuclear weaponry also weakened China in the 1990s. For this reason, it is wrong to try to outlaw pistols and rifles in the United States today." There's obviously a step or two missing here.

You happen to BE a walking, talking, living, breathing Non-Sequitur. One simply has to look at all of your posts to see it.

Whether he did or not has nothing to do with "greed". Cutting taxes for millionaires is an example of greed. Increasing the debt has nothing to do with greed. Nobody's pockets are being lined. Buying companies just so you can take them apart and sell them off to make a profit is an example of Greed. But since you still haven't recognized the earlier posts regarding the size of a soft drink as the issue...and not the particular product itself...I wouldn't expect you to grasp any of this. And then of course you have to "lace" your post with the usual derangement like this: "Obama (the greedy grime he is". Opinions rooted in name calling don't win you any points here. A rational argument is your best weapon. You fail miserably on that score.

It's not a strawman argument when you attempt to bring up an issue that you previously had no problem with when it was your people that were doing the very thing that you now condemn. It's hypocrisy on your part and that's been pointed out to you. The United States did not begin in January of 08, in case you weren't aware.

 

This president taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Just what exactly are your credentials in that area?

BTW... just for the sake of irritating you, "President does not seem to understand separation of powers."
Nowhere in the Constitution is the Separation of Powers actually articulated.

In terms of legalization of drugs, I think, the battle, the war on drugs has been an utter failure and I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws but I’m not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana. What I do believe is that we need to rethink how we are operating in the drug wars, and I think that currently, we are not doing a good job.
January 21, 2004, Northwestern University

About six-in-ten (59%) of Democrats favor the legalization of marijuana use compared to 37% of Republicans — a difference of 22 percentage points. Independents favor legalization by about the same percentage as Democrats. http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-nu...ijuana-but-agree-on-law-enforcement-policies/

More Republicans (47%) than Democrats (26%) also say that use of marijuana is morally wrong. Again, the views of independents are closer to those of Democrats, with just 28% considering marijuana use to be morally wrong.

Oregon Democrat’s bill would legalize medical marijuana at federal level
An Oregon Democrat has introduced legislation to legalize marijuana for medical use at the federal level.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer and 13 co-sponsors say the measure would help clear up confusion that has pitted states — with legalized marijuana laws — against federal authorities. The bill, Politico reported, would keep federal agents from taking action in the 19 states where marijuana is legal and would set forth guidelines for the Federal Drug Administration to legalize the drug for medicinal use.

“Frankly, the people in the federal hierarchy are in an impossible position,” Mr. Blumenauer said, according to Politico. “[This bill] gets the federal government and the Department of Justice out of this never-never land.”

Mr. Blumenauer’s bill would also establish a means for the government to collect taxes from the drug, Politico adds.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...l-would-legalize-medical-marij/#ixzz2cMvQHDoK

 

I don't think he's interested in an honest appraisal of the situation.

 

The product is no different. Only the amount you are consuming. If you buy a larger quantity it will cost you more. Actually in the long run it would cost you less, because volume buying is always cheaper and offers a savings, but that's not the issue with Bloomberg. It's the amount of sugar you'd be consuming. You would probably have the same issue with helmet laws or seat belt laws. But if those laws reduce injuries it lowers insurance rates which everyone has to pay. Why should people have to pay higher costs because somebody is objecting to wearing a helmet or seat belt?

That's a false claim. The price is different because of the quantity. That's all. A liter of Coke is still Coke. It's just more Coke and you pay more for more Coke. Why you don't understand this is astonishing to me. Bloomberg is not telling you what brand of anything you can or can't buy, so your assertion that he's telling you what you can buy is false.

You have NOT told me which soda I can buy. I may choose to buy a Pepsi instead of a Coke. Problem solved right? What you are telling me is how much of a Coke I can buy. So, I'll just buy a Big Gulp of another brand. Do you really not understand this?

I...(we) don't consider that over-reacting. We call it dealing with facts instead of wild assertions that are simply false. Your apology is accepted. It's about the size. We may see Bloomberg as an over-reaching idiot, but lets at least get it right when we are pointing accusations at him. Bloomberg has an outrageous concept of feeling a need to protect the people of New York. You can see that not only in the Super Sized Drinks but in the Stop and Frisk laws.

Yes they can. And if they do they'll be reminded that the difference between a conservative and a liberal is that the conservative knows that he's right. The Liberal knows that he could be wrong. Which do you think is closer to the truth? I recognize that I could be wrong about a host of things. I know that I'm a fallible human being and there are no infallible ideas that spring from a fallible mind. I'm not in the business of proving that I'm right. I'm more inclined to show where somebody else might be wrong.

As for your beer...nobody's really interested in any of that. Enjoy your beer. Try not to finish the entire 6 pack in one sitting. It's likely that somebody else will suffer for it.

 

LOL now youre telling me what beer to drink?
And what did you mean by the last line? Why would someone suffer if I drank a six pack as opposed to one beer they are identical liquids. IS drinking more beer somehow "different" than drinking less?

 

Then is anyone should know better, it would be him. Doesn't seem to appear to be so.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the separation of powers? The framework of government outlined in the Constitution of 1787 presupposes the separation of powers, gives expression to it, and in so doing further refines the meaning of the doctrine. To say it does not exist is to ignore history, court precedent, and origination.

 

How is cutting taxes greed? Because you want those peoples money and someone else is telling you that you can;t have it? How is that person or the taxpayer greedy? Isn't you who is greedy who wants to raise the taxes on other people so you can have their money? For the programs you like and they don't?

 

I don't think that I mentioned anything about what beer to drink. Where did you come up with that? I don't care if you drink Pabst Blue Ribbon. Again what possible difference could the brand make if your intention is to polish off a six pack? You'll get drunk regardless.
As for the last line, I would think that even you would understand that there is a difference between drinking one beer and an entire 6 pack. Drinking more beer is obviously different than drinking one beer for the simple fact of the alcohol content. For example: If you drink one beer you may pass a breathalyzer test from a cop if you get pulled over. If you drink a 6 pack at one sitting, you'll likely get a DUI, regardless of the brand. That is if you don't cause an accident first. Of course if that happened you'd be given the breathalyzer and get hauled off for drunk driving. And if you killed somebody, you'd be convicted of manslaughter at the very least. You actually need for me to tell you why drinking more beer will have a substantially different effect on you? Now assuming that you're staying at home and not putting others in danger because of your desire to finish off a six pack, then you only have you to concern yourself with...or your family that will have to endure the behavior of a drunk. You do realize that the more beer you drink the higher the alcohol content appears in your system right? Do you think a cop would ask you what brand of beer you drank? Do you actually think that would matter to him, or the judge that takes your license? Or worse, would it matter to the person that you run into while driving drunk?

 

He does. Which is why he acts within the bounds of the constitution. Are you a constitutional lawyer? If not, what makes you think that you would have the credentials to suggest that he is violating the constitution. With all this loose talk, nobody has even attempted to seriously go after the president on any grounds of actions that violate the constitution.

Yes. I know that. Most everyone does. And we all accept that even though it isn't specifically articulated. Just as the Separation of Church and State isn't articulated specifically in those words, the meaning is fully understood by most rational people in this country. To say that it doesn't ignores history, court precedent and origination. I think I already told you that my comment was meant to irritate you. Obviously it worked. This president is fully aware of the separation of powers. And there is another thing about him. He doesn't subscribe to some theory called Unitary Executive like our last President and Vice President did.

The unitary executive theory demands that there be a final chain of command in executive authority that leads all the way up to the President, or, in other words, that the President is the boss of everyone in the Executive Branch and, at least in theory, has the final say on anything that anyone in the Executive Branch does. (For the moment I put aside the obvious counter-examples in the independent federal agencies).

But if one adopts this vision of Executive power, then it becomes extremely important to have some other method outside the Executive branch of overseeing the decisions that the President makes. Otherwise the President will be sorely tempted to confuse what is necessary to safeguard the country with what helps him avoid oversight and political embarrassment, and he will use his position as capo di tutti capi of the Executive Branch to enforce his will.

For this reason, the idea of a unitary executive-- i.e., that the Executive Branch ultimately has one boss-- must not be confused with another idea sometimes also identified with the "unitary executive": the notion that the President has inherent authority to do certain things (because, for example, they are "executive" in nature) and that in doing them he may not be checked, impeded, regulated, or overseen by the other branches. Indeed, *precisely* because the President is ultimately the boss of everyone who works beneath him in the Executive Branch, somebody who *doesn't* work for him must be able to check him.

And what that means is that these two different interpretations of the unitary executive-- which are often confused with each other-- are actually at war with each other. You can have the President be the boss of everyone in the Executive Branch or who exercises executive functions. Or you can make the President immune from oversight and checking by the other branches. But you can't have both. If you have both, you don't have a system of checks and balances. You have a system that produces corruption, mismanagement, abuse of power and tyranny.

Enter Cheney and his puppet...Bush. And where do you think he stood on that?

 

Nobody wants people's money for its own sake, just to take it. That's completely bogus. Taxes are used to fund the government of the United States. It funds our military, our infrastructure. Everything that we do.

Nope. The reason is pretty simple. I don't want anybody's money for any personal enrichment. We don't get to pick and choose where our tax dollars are spent other than through the budgetary process. Perhaps I don't want to fund a war and you happen to be all for it. Are you being greedy for wanting to fund something that I'm opposed to? Suppose I want to fund education. Am I being greedy because you happen to oppose it? That's an absurd notion. Wanting an educated society is a benefit to our country which has to compete globally with other countries. Likewise, going to war may be seen by you as important, whereas I may disagree. It has nothing to do with any personal greed. You seem to think that you have a monopoly on what's important to fund and what isn't. You don't. Neither do I. If the country and our elected officials feels that funding a war is important, my opposition to it isn't based on greed even though there are certainly going to be those that profit handsomely from it. My thinking that a program that benefits the poor or the uninsured, is important for the overall well being of the country is not based on greed. It doesn't pad my bank account. Cutting my taxes to zero so that I can buy another car or another house when the tax dollars can be used in ways that benefit the country strikes me as an act of greed. And wrecking companies in order to make huge profits for investors is another example.

 

There is oversight, it is called the court or impeachment. Congress can impeach anyone in office but they are a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Obama's rejection of the rule of law is an impeachable offense. Obama simply ignores laws he finds inconvenient, from imposing his own Dream Act that Congress did not pass by ordering the field to ignore the laws on the books to having to have legal action to nullify illegal appointments to changing the healthcare laws to suit his wishes.

 

Impeaching the last guy worked out REAL well for a Republican House. They should try that again.

I'm no fan of the President governing via executive order, but Congress is quite simply incapable of accomplishing anything.

 

How limited government of you. Why didn't you post welfare and entitlement programs though?


(Gas taxes pay for most road infrastructure and we pay our president to block pipelines so I am not sure I agree)

Oh so you want everyone taxes to go up. Not just on the wealthy right? So you don't think it is fair what Obama and the democrats are doing to the "rich"?

Wouldn't the buying by the rich do allow someone to get hired building it? Instead of another Obama free cash giveaway, there would be at least a home to show for it.

Paying more taxes doesn't make your country stronger. It makes the government stronger. Not the same thing at all.

To answer your questions, yes it is greedy to want to fund something and not ask for your own taxes to be raised. It is greedy to ask for tax raises for the 1% but not for yourself. The top 3% of taxpayers cover the military and defense of our country. The other 97% have to come up with the cash for redistribution policies.

 

Just because you don't like what Congress does, does not mean that the law should be violated. That would be akin to you breaking the law because you just don't like it. Do you think you would get away with it?

 

Of course not. However, if you can show me how what Obama's doing is actually illegal, go for it. Precedent has been set.

 

What a rant. Lol.

 

http://www.nbra.info/

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...it-obamacare-0818-jm-20130818,0,5666959.story

 

Garbage. Even if it were true, which is far from likely, there's not a 'High Crime or Misdemeanor' in the whole list. I especially love the 'thwarting Congress' one. As if THAT is against the law. You should just keep such entertainment in the conservative bubble where it will be enjoyed.

 

The President takes an oath to uphold the law. This President is instructing the field to break the law. This President is trying to make law, a clear violation of separation of powers.

 

Same thing Dictator Bush did during his eight year reign of terror, isn't it?

 

The Executive branch has taken powers that do not belong. It is up to Congress to stop it.