| Blogs > {CC}StealthBlue |
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On January 22 2009 07:29 oneofthem wrote: what's wrong with receiving gifts from rich people with money to spend. they've done studies even when the person receiving the gift is both aware that they might be affected in judgement by the gift and resolves not to be affected, it still affects their judgement | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36402 Posts
On January 22 2009 08:30 qrs wrote: Yep, good start Obama, curtailing everyone's powers but your own. I'm sure it's a real sacrifice ("...but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make"). you're an idiot | ||
|
overpool
United States191 Posts
On January 22 2009 08:30 qrs wrote: Yep, good start Obama, curtailing everyone's powers but your own. I'm sure it's a real sacrifice ("...but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make"). ....are you complaining that Obama did not do away with the entirety of the Supreme Court-verified power of executive privilege? Do you even know what executive privilege is? Besides, if you had read the article, you would have seen that the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution. Personally, I think these are great moves. I'm always in support of adding transparency and accountability, limiting any executive power, and diminishing the power of lobbyists. | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
I also have no doubt that within the week he will order the DEA to stop shutting down medical marijuana dispensaries in states that have medical marijuana laws. A good start indeed | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On January 22 2009 08:30 qrs wrote: Yep, good start Obama, curtailing everyone's powers but your own. I'm sure it's a real sacrifice ("...but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make"). Yeah it's a really good idea to throw all your power away during an economic crisis so you can't do anything about it. Sick. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 22 2009 09:50 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The first one will create a memorandum that mandates transparency in the government. Basically it helps the regular citizens be informed, and be involved in politics. An "open government" has more citizen involvement. It doesn't mandate anything. FOIA already exists for that purpose and Bush created executive orders to block its usage on the Executive branch. The rules for transparency exist. The rule to bypass those rules exists. Obama needs to repeal rule #2. | ||
|
Megalisk
United States6095 Posts
On January 22 2009 07:28 KingofHearts wrote: he's osama saddom huseein Lol just get out. OT: Its good that hes getting off to a fast start, tomorrow, he is going to sign the order to close Guantanamo within a year. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On January 22 2009 10:53 Jibba wrote: It doesn't mandate anything. FOIA already exists for that purpose and Bush created executive orders to block its usage on the Executive branch. The rules for transparency exist. The rule to bypass those rules exists. Obama needs to repeal rule #2. It's probably going to end up in legislature with X amount of clauses protecting and encouraging transparency and oversight. | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
no you are Edit: Didn't mean that, of course: just making the point that childish name-calling is pretty much a waste of time | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On January 22 2009 12:05 qrs wrote: no you are Edit: Didn't mean that, of course: just making the point that childish name-calling is pretty much a waste of time no it isnt | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On January 22 2009 10:07 overpool wrote: ....are you complaining that Obama did not do away with the entirety of the Supreme Court-verified power of executive privilege? Do you even know what executive privilege is? Besides, if you had read the article, you would have seen that the order Well about your second point, when I read the article I assumed that that referred to claims made by others besides the President again, but on second look, I suppose I didn't have a good reason for that assumption. Re your first point, I'm not complaining about anything: just saying essentially the same thing that Jibba did in the post immediately below mine: limiting his own powers would show integrity; this--maybe it's good, maybe not, but it's not something I'm particularly impressed by. Arguments can be made for and against executive privilege. You yourself said that you're in favor of transparency, yet in the case of the President, you're for executive privilege at the expense of transparency. It's debatable in the case of the President and it's debatable in the case of any other member of the executive branch. Precedents (even Supreme Court precedents) can be and are rewritten all the time--in fact, that's exactly what Obama has just done. As I say, I have no opinion on the actual order here, it just seems like a flashy bit of beginning-of-term power-flexing that costs Obama nothing personally. Nothing to swoon over. | ||
|
SmoKing2012
United States385 Posts
Wake me when he legalizes weed.. | ||
|
SmoKing2012
United States385 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On January 22 2009 12:05 qrs wrote: no you are Edit: Didn't mean that, of course: just making the point that childish name-calling is pretty much a waste of time ur a poopface | ||
|
selboN
United States2523 Posts
On January 22 2009 09:16 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: yep, good start indeed i think obama will do good things for your country  i'm very happy for you, bush must have been a frustrating experience Not really. Contrary to the Liberal beliefs it is GOOD to establish your dominance in your world. The "turning the other cheek" doesn't work vs terrorists. Also, Bush didn't pick for a depression to fall on his lap. To the contrary, Bush was over ridden to this stupid loan policy that has fucked our economy. That was the Liberals nomination and look what it has done to our economy. So, blame the democratic party for our economy not Bush. On another note, Obama is starting out well, as expected. The test will be to whether he will take affirmative action when the time comes. No one has ever doubted his wits. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On January 22 2009 13:22 selboN wrote: Not really. Contrary to the Liberal beliefs it is GOOD to establish your dominance in your world. The "turning the other cheek" doesn't work vs terrorists. Also, Bush didn't pick for a depression to fall on his lap. To the contrary, Bush was over ridden to this stupid loan policy that has fucked our economy. That was the Liberals nomination and look what it has done to our economy. So, blame the democratic party for our economy not Bush. On another note, Obama is starting out well, as expected. The test will be to whether he will take affirmative action when the time comes. No one has ever doubted his wits. 1. Obama has never even implied that he will take a lax stance on terrorism. Is the rejection of the Bush Doctrine, and the dismissal of torture, preemptive invasion, and refusal of diplomacy isn't a weak stance. His stance against terrorism is stronger than Pres. Bush's do to the fact that Bush essentially ignored the central network of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and various other terrorist networks in Pakistan/Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan for oil money in Iraq. 1.5. Establishing your dominance in the world is part of a philosophy that is fading in the post-nationalist era. Citizens in first-world nations are becoming increasingly aware of global issues rather than state issue, and the idea of a global nation is starting to be framed. Whether or not this occurs in a global state is anyone's guess, but I would say it won't be long before the United Nations has a lot more power. 2. Regulation isn't the problem, bad regulation is the problem. Bi-partisanship has consistently led to bad economic policy, not socialist/democratic economics. Congress didn't push the banks to begin giving out bad loans; it was the deregulation that allowed them to, further proving the point that deregulation doesn't work in America. 3. Blame the Republican majority congress, regressive tax, and the Reaganite philosophy of public policy for our economic situation. 4. Is the affirmative action reference a pun? | ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
On January 22 2009 13:22 selboN wrote: Not really. Contrary to the Liberal beliefs it is GOOD to establish your dominance in your world. The "turning the other cheek" doesn't work vs terrorists. Also, Bush didn't pick for a depression to fall on his lap. To the contrary, Bush was over ridden to this stupid loan policy that has fucked our economy. That was the Liberals nomination and look what it has done to our economy. So, blame the democratic party for our economy not Bush. On another note, Obama is starting out well, as expected. The test will be to whether he will take affirmative action when the time comes. No one has ever doubted his wits. do you think i have liberal beliefs | ||
|
overpool
United States191 Posts
On January 22 2009 12:23 qrs wrote: Well about your second point, when I read the article I assumed that that referred to claims made by others besides the President again, but on second look, I suppose I didn't have a good reason for that assumption. Re your first point, I'm not complaining about anything: just saying essentially the same thing that Jibba did in the post immediately below mine: limiting his own powers would show integrity; this--maybe it's good, maybe not, but it's not something I'm particularly impressed by. Arguments can be made for and against executive privilege. You yourself said that you're in favor of transparency, yet in the case of the President, you're for executive privilege at the expense of transparency. It's debatable in the case of the President and it's debatable in the case of any other member of the executive branch. Precedents (even Supreme Court precedents) can be and are rewritten all the time--in fact, that's exactly what Obama has just done. As I say, I have no opinion on the actual order here, it just seems like a flashy bit of beginning-of-term power-flexing that costs Obama nothing personally. Nothing to swoon over. But limiting executive privilege to only himself DOES limit Obama's power by limiting the power of his administration. Even more dangerous than the President gaining some power is the entire Executive branch gaining too much power. This is because any power that the Presidents close friends and political allies have will undoubtedly be used to support him. This has happened repeatedly in the past 8 years, and has been a major factor in creating the least Constitutionally restrained presidential administration in modern history. To call limiting the power of the Executive branch "power-flexing that costs Obama nothing personally" is to ignore the political reality that any administration wishing to take unfair advantage of executive power will be able to gain that power by working together. | ||
|
yubee
United States3826 Posts
On January 22 2009 13:22 selboN wrote: you're as mindless as a slice of breadNot really. Contrary to the Liberal beliefs it is GOOD to establish your dominance in your world. The "turning the other cheek" doesn't work vs terrorists. Also, Bush didn't pick for a depression to fall on his lap. To the contrary, Bush was over ridden to this stupid loan policy that has fucked our economy. That was the Liberals nomination and look what it has done to our economy. So, blame the democratic party for our economy not Bush. On another note, Obama is starting out well, as expected. The test will be to whether he will take affirmative action when the time comes. No one has ever doubted his wits. | ||
| ||
|
|
KCM Race Survival
IntoTheTV X SOOP
SHIN vs GuMiho
Clem vs Classic
OSC
WardiTV Invitational
GSL
Epic.LAN
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Epic.LAN
AI Arena Tournament
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
