|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
This is a slap in the face to anyone who's gone through military training, let alone risked their life overseas for our country. Likening prep school to actual military training and military experience? Are you fucking kidding me? How *exactly* does that work? If you don't do the math homework I'm assigning you, you're literally going to die or have a leg blown off? How utterly disrespectful.
Donald Trump Likens His Schooling to Military Service in Book
Donald J. Trump, who received draft deferments through much of the Vietnam War, told the author of a forthcoming biography that he nevertheless “always felt that I was in the military” because of his education at a military-themed boarding school.
Mr. Trump said that his experience at the New York Military Academy, an expensive prep school where his parents had sent him to correct poor behavior, gave him “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.”
That claim may raise eyebrows given that Mr. Trump, now a Republican presidential candidate, never served in the military and mocked Senator John McCain, a decorated naval aviator, for his yearslong captivity during the Vietnam War.
“He’s not a war hero,” Mr. Trump said in July. “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.
~excerpt from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/politics/donald-trump-likens-his-schooling-to-military-service-in-book.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
|
On September 09 2015 08:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is a slap in the face to anyone who's gone through military training, let alone risked their life overseas for our country. Likening prep school to actual military training and military experience? Are you fucking kidding me? How *exactly* does that work? If you don't do the math homework I'm assigning you, you're literally going to die or have a leg blown off? How utterly disrespectful. Show nested quote +Donald Trump Likens His Schooling to Military Service in Book
Donald J. Trump, who received draft deferments through much of the Vietnam War, told the author of a forthcoming biography that he nevertheless “always felt that I was in the military” because of his education at a military-themed boarding school.
Mr. Trump said that his experience at the New York Military Academy, an expensive prep school where his parents had sent him to correct poor behavior, gave him “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.”
That claim may raise eyebrows given that Mr. Trump, now a Republican presidential candidate, never served in the military and mocked Senator John McCain, a decorated naval aviator, for his yearslong captivity during the Vietnam War.
“He’s not a war hero,” Mr. Trump said in July. “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured. ~excerpt from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/politics/donald-trump-likens-his-schooling-to-military-service-in-book.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
If soldiers would think badly of him over this they were already thinking badly of his over his McCain comments I imagine.
Changes nothing really.
|
My brother sent me a text about that. He wasn't captured in Iraq or Afghanistan and would love to explain to Trump what a war hero is. I have been informed it would be a short discussion.
On September 09 2015 07:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 06:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
It's all Politics even with Theocratic ideologues
oh look dumb Republicans doing dumb shit. Can we get the primary over with so these people can fade out of the news again?
The primary has not started yet. We are in the Death March phase where they weed out the poorer candidates. We got like 5 months to go.
|
On September 09 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision I don't care about the legal ramifications. I just think it is fucking appalling that this judge takes some poor (trying to break up) couples' life and ruins it for the sake of making a political point.
That criticism cuts both ways.
I think it's a little disingenuous for people on the left to pretend that they care about 'rule of law', considering how many laws Democrats (from Obama down to the San Francisco mayor, and further to the grassroots with OWS and #blacklivesmatter) ignore or flat-out break in the name of politics.
No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Likewise with wedding photographers and bakers who refuse to service gay weddings. Those people's lives are being ruined too, and the motivation is not a respect for the law, it's punishment for a political disagreement.
At least, all evidence points to it being such. One cannot ignore and break all the laws one does not like and then claim that they have a 'respect for the law'.
|
On September 09 2015 08:38 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision I don't care about the legal ramifications. I just think it is fucking appalling that this judge takes some poor (trying to break up) couples' life and ruins it for the sake of making a political point. That criticism cuts both ways. I think it's a little disingenuous for people on the left to pretend that they care about 'rule of law', considering how many laws Democrats (from Obama down to the San Francisco mayor, and further to the grassroots with OWS and #blacklivesmatter) ignore or flat-out break in the name of politics. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Likewise with wedding photographers and bakers who refuse to service gay weddings. Those people's lives are being ruined too, and the motivation is not a respect for the law, it's punishment for a political disagreement. At least, all evidence points to it being such. One cannot ignore and break all the laws one does not like and then claim that they have a 'respect for the law'.
I am pretty sure everyone just wants her to let her office issue marriage licences. People said she should be jailed because she defied the court order and she works for the Court. You're continued efforts to try to make it about "a disagreement of opinion" completely disingenuous. She had her disagreement of opinion and it when before highest court in the country. She lost.
|
People could care less if Kim Davis is in jail or not. People just want the homosexuals in that area to not be discriminated against The people who sued her even asked for her specifically to not be jailed.
No one actually gives a fuck about if she is in jail or not. Its not some kind of huge victory for religion if she is freed. As long as gay couples can get married there she can be as much of a bigot bitch as she wants to be.
|
The key is that she need to act like the victim to the mean government that is oppressing her. Forget the fact that she was using her government office to repress other people by not allowing them to marry. And she would keep doing it if she could, but the court won't let her.
|
On September 09 2015 08:53 Slaughter wrote:
People could care less if Kim Davis is in jail or not. People just want the homosexuals in that area to not be discriminated against The people who sued her even asked for her specifically to not be jailed.
No one actually gives a fuck about if she is in jail or not. Its not some kind of huge victory for religion if she is freed. As long as gay couples can get married there she can be as much of a bigot bitch as she wants to be.
True. The people who understand that she's a moronic bigot don't give a shit about her... they just want people to get their marriage licenses and be treated fairly.
|
On September 09 2015 08:38 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision I don't care about the legal ramifications. I just think it is fucking appalling that this judge takes some poor (trying to break up) couples' life and ruins it for the sake of making a political point. That criticism cuts both ways. I think it's a little disingenuous for people on the left to pretend that they care about 'rule of law', considering how many laws Democrats (from Obama down to the San Francisco mayor, and further to the grassroots with OWS and #blacklivesmatter) ignore or flat-out break in the name of politics. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Likewise with wedding photographers and bakers who refuse to service gay weddings. Those people's lives are being ruined too, and the motivation is not a respect for the law, it's punishment for a political disagreement. At least, all evidence points to it being such. One cannot ignore and break all the laws one does not like and then claim that they have a 'respect for the law'.
No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage.
Citation needed. Can you name anyone in this thread, or any popular op-ed /editorial written by a known leftist/liberal expressing this sentiment?
I don't care if you are the second coming of Jesus Christ, if you don't perform the duty that you are appointed to perform, you should either resign, or go to jail.
Also its pretty interesting that you chose to bring up Obama. Can you name any of the laws that he has actually broken? Or is it the same right wing fox news rhetoric without any actual substance (hurr benghazi durr), because trust me, considering the current state of both the houses, if Obama had actually committed a major fuckup, he would have been impeached in a heartbeat. Since there is no actual substantive evidence, you just chose to indulge in mudslinging, and useless rhetoric.
|
Thousands of Seattle public school teachers will likely strike on the first day of school Wednesday, joining teachers in southeastern Washington state who have been striking since their school year began on Sept. 1, local media reported.
The actions follow a series of strikes this spring, when thousands of Washington state teachers in more than 60 school districts demanded better pay and benefits, as well as reductions in class size. Although contracts were eventually reached in most districts, teachers in the cities of Seattle and Pasco have not yet reached a deal.
Last week about 5,000 Seattle teachers and support staff voted to strike after failing to reach a tentative agreement with Seattle Public Schools. Public schools in the city are scheduled to begin classes on Wednesday. The Seattle Public School District serves approximately 52,000 people.
As of Tuesday morning, “no agreement has been reached yet,” according to Tim Clements-Levin, an office administrator with the Seattle Education Association (SEA), the union representing the teachers who are poised to go on strike.
The state’s legislature hasn’t given teachers a cost-of-living raise in six years, according to SEA. Lawmakers approved a 3 percent raise this year, followed by a 1.8 percent raise the following year, according to local station KIRO TV.
The union had asked for a 6 percent pay raise every year for three years, in addition to the 3 percent cost of living increase, SEA said in a bargaining update on its website Tuesday.
SEA said that the district’s wage proposal barely budged from previous offers, and that staff would work 30 minutes longer each day without additional compensation, the update added.
Source
|
On September 09 2015 09:15 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 08:38 Cowboy64 wrote:On September 09 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision I don't care about the legal ramifications. I just think it is fucking appalling that this judge takes some poor (trying to break up) couples' life and ruins it for the sake of making a political point. That criticism cuts both ways. I think it's a little disingenuous for people on the left to pretend that they care about 'rule of law', considering how many laws Democrats (from Obama down to the San Francisco mayor, and further to the grassroots with OWS and #blacklivesmatter) ignore or flat-out break in the name of politics. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Likewise with wedding photographers and bakers who refuse to service gay weddings. Those people's lives are being ruined too, and the motivation is not a respect for the law, it's punishment for a political disagreement. At least, all evidence points to it being such. One cannot ignore and break all the laws one does not like and then claim that they have a 'respect for the law'. Show nested quote +No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Citation needed. Can you name anyone in this thread, or any popular op-ed /editorial written by a known leftist/liberal expressing this sentiment? I don't care if you are the second coming of Jesus Christ, if you don't perform the duty that you are appointed to perform, you should either resign, or go to jail. Also its pretty interesting that you chose to bring up Obama. Can you name any of the laws that he has actually broken? Or is it the same right wing fox news rhetoric without any actual substance (hurr benghazi durr), because trust me, considering the current state of both the houses, if Obama had actually committed a major fuckup, he would have been impeached in a heartbeat. Since there is no actual substantive evidence, you just chose to indulge in mudslinging, and useless rhetoric. You wouldn't be trolling us here or anything? I thought most of Obama's defenders had jumped ship, or rather changed vessels to the more comfortable "He was forced to break the law, which was made absolutely necessary by GOP intractability and the state of antiquated laws." He had no authority to amend the lawfully passed Obamacare to change the specific dates and years where requirements were placed on employers. Later he issued letters detailing which regulations on insurers he would choose to not enforce. He made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. After Congress neglected to pass the DREAM Act, Obama's Napolitano suspended deportation of the young illegals subject to current immigration law violations (and the debate raged on and on about the apprently nonexistent limits to prosecutor discretion).
Impeachment in modern times has been a popularity contest, and Obama's numbers haven't dipped that low. Additionally, opposition leadership in the capitol is spineless and ill-equipped to bring about those proceedings (whoever wants to impeach the first black president raise their hands). In an alternate universe with intense civic engagement and understanding on the constitutional requirements of the office of the president and impeachment, he'd have been long gone, and likely Bush and Clinton before him.
|
Psh. Average salary for a Seattle teacher is ~50k according to google, and they get way more time off than your average worker. Hard to side with them on this strike..
|
On September 09 2015 10:21 Chewbacca. wrote:
Psh. Average salary for a Seattle teacher is ~50k according to google, and they get way more time off than your average worker. Hard to side with them on this strike..
All they're asking for is cost of living increases. The 6% per year for 3 years is just catching up on the last 6 years where nothing happened, the +3% is the cost of living for that year. By the end of the 3 years, they'd be up to date with their salary (assuming you believe their salary should accommodate for cost of living increases).
Still, they're hilariously far away in terms of negotiating. Teachers want to be +27% by the end of the 3 years, while the government wants to give them around 7.2%, haha.
|
On September 09 2015 10:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 09:15 Piledriver wrote:On September 09 2015 08:38 Cowboy64 wrote:On September 09 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision I don't care about the legal ramifications. I just think it is fucking appalling that this judge takes some poor (trying to break up) couples' life and ruins it for the sake of making a political point. That criticism cuts both ways. I think it's a little disingenuous for people on the left to pretend that they care about 'rule of law', considering how many laws Democrats (from Obama down to the San Francisco mayor, and further to the grassroots with OWS and #blacklivesmatter) ignore or flat-out break in the name of politics. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Likewise with wedding photographers and bakers who refuse to service gay weddings. Those people's lives are being ruined too, and the motivation is not a respect for the law, it's punishment for a political disagreement. At least, all evidence points to it being such. One cannot ignore and break all the laws one does not like and then claim that they have a 'respect for the law'. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Citation needed. Can you name anyone in this thread, or any popular op-ed /editorial written by a known leftist/liberal expressing this sentiment? I don't care if you are the second coming of Jesus Christ, if you don't perform the duty that you are appointed to perform, you should either resign, or go to jail. Also its pretty interesting that you chose to bring up Obama. Can you name any of the laws that he has actually broken? Or is it the same right wing fox news rhetoric without any actual substance (hurr benghazi durr), because trust me, considering the current state of both the houses, if Obama had actually committed a major fuckup, he would have been impeached in a heartbeat. Since there is no actual substantive evidence, you just chose to indulge in mudslinging, and useless rhetoric. You wouldn't be trolling us here or anything? I thought most of Obama's defenders had jumped ship, or rather changed vessels to the more comfortable "He was forced to break the law, which was made absolutely necessary by GOP intractability and the state of antiquated laws." He had no authority to amend the lawfully passed Obamacare to change the specific dates and years where requirements were placed on employers. Later he issued letters detailing which regulations on insurers he would choose to not enforce. He made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. After Congress neglected to pass the DREAM Act, Obama's Napolitano suspended deportation of the young illegals subject to current immigration law violations (and the debate raged on and on about the apprently nonexistent limits to prosecutor discretion). Impeachment in modern times has been a popularity contest, and Obama's numbers haven't dipped that low. Additionally, opposition leadership in the capitol is spineless and ill-equipped to bring about those proceedings (whoever wants to impeach the first black president raise their hands). In an alternate universe with intense civic engagement and understanding on the constitutional requirements of the office of the president and impeachment, he'd have been long gone, and likely Bush and Clinton before him.
Has Obama ever actually been legally convicted of any of the charges brought against him?
|
Of course Obama's guilty. He's black.
|
On September 09 2015 11:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 10:18 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2015 09:15 Piledriver wrote:On September 09 2015 08:38 Cowboy64 wrote:On September 09 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision I don't care about the legal ramifications. I just think it is fucking appalling that this judge takes some poor (trying to break up) couples' life and ruins it for the sake of making a political point. That criticism cuts both ways. I think it's a little disingenuous for people on the left to pretend that they care about 'rule of law', considering how many laws Democrats (from Obama down to the San Francisco mayor, and further to the grassroots with OWS and #blacklivesmatter) ignore or flat-out break in the name of politics. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Likewise with wedding photographers and bakers who refuse to service gay weddings. Those people's lives are being ruined too, and the motivation is not a respect for the law, it's punishment for a political disagreement. At least, all evidence points to it being such. One cannot ignore and break all the laws one does not like and then claim that they have a 'respect for the law'. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Citation needed. Can you name anyone in this thread, or any popular op-ed /editorial written by a known leftist/liberal expressing this sentiment? I don't care if you are the second coming of Jesus Christ, if you don't perform the duty that you are appointed to perform, you should either resign, or go to jail. Also its pretty interesting that you chose to bring up Obama. Can you name any of the laws that he has actually broken? Or is it the same right wing fox news rhetoric without any actual substance (hurr benghazi durr), because trust me, considering the current state of both the houses, if Obama had actually committed a major fuckup, he would have been impeached in a heartbeat. Since there is no actual substantive evidence, you just chose to indulge in mudslinging, and useless rhetoric. You wouldn't be trolling us here or anything? I thought most of Obama's defenders had jumped ship, or rather changed vessels to the more comfortable "He was forced to break the law, which was made absolutely necessary by GOP intractability and the state of antiquated laws." He had no authority to amend the lawfully passed Obamacare to change the specific dates and years where requirements were placed on employers. Later he issued letters detailing which regulations on insurers he would choose to not enforce. He made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. After Congress neglected to pass the DREAM Act, Obama's Napolitano suspended deportation of the young illegals subject to current immigration law violations (and the debate raged on and on about the apprently nonexistent limits to prosecutor discretion). Impeachment in modern times has been a popularity contest, and Obama's numbers haven't dipped that low. Additionally, opposition leadership in the capitol is spineless and ill-equipped to bring about those proceedings (whoever wants to impeach the first black president raise their hands). In an alternate universe with intense civic engagement and understanding on the constitutional requirements of the office of the president and impeachment, he'd have been long gone, and likely Bush and Clinton before him. Has Obama ever actually been legally convicted of any of the charges brought against him?
Was Nixon? J. Edgar Hoover?
Edit:
Lets be clear that Nixon was only found out after 6 years of corrupt behavior because of an incompetently executed and ill fated break in. Plus Congress and the media set against him, plus the aforementioned powerful Hoover, plus a CIA leaker. Plus his failure to destroy tapes he never should have kept.
|
On September 09 2015 11:54 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 11:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2015 10:18 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2015 09:15 Piledriver wrote:On September 09 2015 08:38 Cowboy64 wrote:On September 09 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision I don't care about the legal ramifications. I just think it is fucking appalling that this judge takes some poor (trying to break up) couples' life and ruins it for the sake of making a political point. That criticism cuts both ways. I think it's a little disingenuous for people on the left to pretend that they care about 'rule of law', considering how many laws Democrats (from Obama down to the San Francisco mayor, and further to the grassroots with OWS and #blacklivesmatter) ignore or flat-out break in the name of politics. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Likewise with wedding photographers and bakers who refuse to service gay weddings. Those people's lives are being ruined too, and the motivation is not a respect for the law, it's punishment for a political disagreement. At least, all evidence points to it being such. One cannot ignore and break all the laws one does not like and then claim that they have a 'respect for the law'. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Citation needed. Can you name anyone in this thread, or any popular op-ed /editorial written by a known leftist/liberal expressing this sentiment? I don't care if you are the second coming of Jesus Christ, if you don't perform the duty that you are appointed to perform, you should either resign, or go to jail. Also its pretty interesting that you chose to bring up Obama. Can you name any of the laws that he has actually broken? Or is it the same right wing fox news rhetoric without any actual substance (hurr benghazi durr), because trust me, considering the current state of both the houses, if Obama had actually committed a major fuckup, he would have been impeached in a heartbeat. Since there is no actual substantive evidence, you just chose to indulge in mudslinging, and useless rhetoric. You wouldn't be trolling us here or anything? I thought most of Obama's defenders had jumped ship, or rather changed vessels to the more comfortable "He was forced to break the law, which was made absolutely necessary by GOP intractability and the state of antiquated laws." He had no authority to amend the lawfully passed Obamacare to change the specific dates and years where requirements were placed on employers. Later he issued letters detailing which regulations on insurers he would choose to not enforce. He made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. After Congress neglected to pass the DREAM Act, Obama's Napolitano suspended deportation of the young illegals subject to current immigration law violations (and the debate raged on and on about the apprently nonexistent limits to prosecutor discretion). Impeachment in modern times has been a popularity contest, and Obama's numbers haven't dipped that low. Additionally, opposition leadership in the capitol is spineless and ill-equipped to bring about those proceedings (whoever wants to impeach the first black president raise their hands). In an alternate universe with intense civic engagement and understanding on the constitutional requirements of the office of the president and impeachment, he'd have been long gone, and likely Bush and Clinton before him. Has Obama ever actually been legally convicted of any of the charges brought against him? Was Nixon? J. Edgar Hoover?
Don't deflect; I'm legitimately curious. I haven't followed every single accusation too closely because it seems every other day he's being accused of nonsense, from being an atheistic Communist Kenyan Muslim to doing things that he's perfectly allowed to do via executive actions. I'm wondering if people are still just talking out of their asses. After all, the burden of proof is on the accusers to demonstrate that he has (or should) be convicted by a court.
|
WASHINGTON -- A group of 28 House Republican lawmakers, all men, are pledging to do everything in their power to defund Planned Parenthood this fall, even it means shutting down the federal government in protest.
In a letter circulated this summer by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the congressmen pledged to vote against any bill that funds the federal government if it includes money for Planned Parenthood. Congress must fund the government by Sept. 30 to avoid a shutdown.
"We must act to fully defund Planned Parenthood," the letter says. "Please know that we cannot and will not support any funding resolution – an appropriations bill, an omnibus package, a continuing resolution, or otherwise – that contains any funding for Planned Parenthood, including mandatory funding streams."
The lawmakers cited a series of heavily edited undercover videos that show Planned Parenthood doctors discussing the donation of fetal tissue for medical research after abortions. The anti-abortion group that circulated the videos claims that the family planning provider is selling fetal parts for profit, although multiple state investigations into that claim have come up with nothing.
Planned Parenthood receives about $500 million in government funding, mostly through Medicaid and a federal family planning program. The money is used to subsidize birth control, cancer screenings and other women's health services. The longstanding Hyde Amendment prevents any federal funds from being used to pay for abortions, but Republicans have been trying to defund Planned Parenthood over its abortion services since 2011.
The current fight over Planned Parenthood funding has divided the GOP. While Republican leaders in the House and Senate are hoping to avoid a government shutdown over Planned Parenthood funding -- because the GOP would likely absorb most of the blame for it -- the conservative voices in both chambers are growing louder. As Mulvaney's letter continues to gain signatures, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is leading the effort on the Senate side to hold up the must-pass federal budget bill in a bid to defund the family planning provider.
Source
|
On September 09 2015 12:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 11:54 cLutZ wrote:On September 09 2015 11:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2015 10:18 Danglars wrote:On September 09 2015 09:15 Piledriver wrote:On September 09 2015 08:38 Cowboy64 wrote:On September 09 2015 06:20 Acrofales wrote:On September 07 2015 22:43 farvacola wrote:CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.-- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue gays marriage licenses, a Chattanooga Chancellor is now using the Supreme Court decision to deny a divorce.
Chancellor Jeffrey M. Atherton says he could not rule on the divorce of a couple in their 60s because “With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Chancellor Atherton added "The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces."
Seven witnesses and 77 exhibits were admitted into evidence in the divorce case of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner, but Chancellor Atherton stated the evidence presented was "mixed at best" and added they did not prove "inappropriate marital conduct by a preponderance of the evidence." Tennessee Judge Rules Against Couple's Divorce, Cites SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision I don't care about the legal ramifications. I just think it is fucking appalling that this judge takes some poor (trying to break up) couples' life and ruins it for the sake of making a political point. That criticism cuts both ways. I think it's a little disingenuous for people on the left to pretend that they care about 'rule of law', considering how many laws Democrats (from Obama down to the San Francisco mayor, and further to the grassroots with OWS and #blacklivesmatter) ignore or flat-out break in the name of politics. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Likewise with wedding photographers and bakers who refuse to service gay weddings. Those people's lives are being ruined too, and the motivation is not a respect for the law, it's punishment for a political disagreement. At least, all evidence points to it being such. One cannot ignore and break all the laws one does not like and then claim that they have a 'respect for the law'. No one is calling for Kim Davies to be put in jail because she's breaking the law. They are calling for her to be put in jail because she is against homosexual marriage. Citation needed. Can you name anyone in this thread, or any popular op-ed /editorial written by a known leftist/liberal expressing this sentiment? I don't care if you are the second coming of Jesus Christ, if you don't perform the duty that you are appointed to perform, you should either resign, or go to jail. Also its pretty interesting that you chose to bring up Obama. Can you name any of the laws that he has actually broken? Or is it the same right wing fox news rhetoric without any actual substance (hurr benghazi durr), because trust me, considering the current state of both the houses, if Obama had actually committed a major fuckup, he would have been impeached in a heartbeat. Since there is no actual substantive evidence, you just chose to indulge in mudslinging, and useless rhetoric. You wouldn't be trolling us here or anything? I thought most of Obama's defenders had jumped ship, or rather changed vessels to the more comfortable "He was forced to break the law, which was made absolutely necessary by GOP intractability and the state of antiquated laws." He had no authority to amend the lawfully passed Obamacare to change the specific dates and years where requirements were placed on employers. Later he issued letters detailing which regulations on insurers he would choose to not enforce. He made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. After Congress neglected to pass the DREAM Act, Obama's Napolitano suspended deportation of the young illegals subject to current immigration law violations (and the debate raged on and on about the apprently nonexistent limits to prosecutor discretion). Impeachment in modern times has been a popularity contest, and Obama's numbers haven't dipped that low. Additionally, opposition leadership in the capitol is spineless and ill-equipped to bring about those proceedings (whoever wants to impeach the first black president raise their hands). In an alternate universe with intense civic engagement and understanding on the constitutional requirements of the office of the president and impeachment, he'd have been long gone, and likely Bush and Clinton before him. Has Obama ever actually been legally convicted of any of the charges brought against him? Was Nixon? J. Edgar Hoover? Don't deflect; I'm legitimately curious. I haven't followed every single accusation too closely because it seems every other day he's being accused of nonsense, from being an atheistic Communist Kenyan Muslim to doing things that he's perfectly allowed to do via executive actions. I'm wondering if people are still just talking out of their asses. After all, the burden of proof is on the accusers to demonstrate that he has (or should) be convicted by a court.
I'm fairly certain no moderately competent President would ever be convicted of a crime while in office, or while an allied President is. Only the power of the Presidency could expose it. That said, if you want information on the myriad of his executive orders that have been deemed illegal:
Michigan v. EPA, Noel Canning, Hobby Lobby, Sackett v. EPA, DACA, Horne v. USDA, Bond v. United States
One could, probably, argue that Obama's greatest skill, however, is issuing orders in which no one has standing to challenge in court, such as the ACA deferral (he probably thought the same was true for DACA), Syria, Libya, Iran (maybe), the gun running sceme, changing welfare eligibility requirements.
All this, I think Clinton=corrupt I'd bleeding into Obama, who I don't think is corrupt, just an overreached (a is that a word?) who is vindictive
|
I'm reminded of a quote from Lincoln:
I decided that the Constitution gives me war powers, but no one knows just exactly what those powers are. Some say they don't exist. I don't know. I decided I needed them to exist to uphold my oath to protect the Constitution, which I decided meant that I could take the rebel's slaves from them as property confiscated in war. That might recommend to suspicion that I agree with the rebs that their slaves are property in the first place. Of course I don't, never have, I'm glad to see any man free, and if calling a man property, or war contraband, does the trick... Why I caught at the opportunity. Now here's where it gets truly slippery. I use the law allowing for the seizure of property in a war knowing it applies only to the property of governments and citizens of belligerent nations. But the South ain't a nation, that's why I can't negotiate with'em. If in fact the Negroes are property according to law, have I the right to take the rebels' property from 'em, if I insist they're rebels only, and not citizens of a belligerent country? And slipperier still: I maintain it ain't our actual Southern states in rebellion but only the rebels living in those states, the laws of which states remain in force. The laws of which states remain in force. That means, that since it's states' laws that determine whether Negroes can be sold as slaves, as property - the Federal government doesn't have a say in that, least not yet then Negroes in those states are slaves, hence property, hence my war powers allow me to confiscate'em as such. So I confiscated 'em. But if I'm a respecter of states' laws, how then can I legally free'em with my Proclamation, as I done, unless I'm cancelling states' laws? I felt the war demanded it; my oath demanded it; I felt right with myself; and I hoped it was legal to do it, I'm hoping still. Two years ago I proclaimed these people emancipated - "then, hence forward and forever free."But let's say the courts decide I had no authority to do it. They might well decide that. Say there's no amendment abolishing slavery. Say it's after the war, and I can no longer use my war powers to just ignore the courts' decisions, like I sometimes felt I had to do. Might those people I freed be ordered back into slavery? That's why I'd like to get the Thirteenth Amendment through the House, and on its way to ratification by the states, wrap the whole slavery thing up, forever and aye. As soon as I'm able. Now. End of this month. And I'd like you to stand behind me. Like my cabinet's most always done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
