|
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. |
On January 17 2014 19:49 Danglars wrote:ZeaL., you have to look to the news article I had previously quoted. It was Obama touting his power and his ability to do things with his pen and phone and not Congress. The real comparison here is that Boehner got pitched a softball and swung the bat at it. The man's more zombie than living in terms of leadership. If Boehner saw that slow pitch, it had to have been a flub of epic proportions, in essence. Show nested quote +On January 17 2014 00:26 itsjustatank wrote:On January 16 2014 15:16 Danglars wrote:On January 16 2014 06:59 itsjustatank wrote:
uh I have no horse here stop assuming. all im saying that assuming any president hasnt done such and such with the xo power is partisan naivete when the large majority of them are classified
this goes far beyond your petty and insignificant partisan bickering. im talking about the executive oder as a tool on its own. I'm talking about executive orders and enforcement discretion as they are currently being applied to passed legislation. This is a president deciding not to act within his constitutional authority. On January 16 2014 00:04 Mindcrime wrote:On January 15 2014 21:59 Danglars wrote:On January 15 2014 21:39 Mindcrime wrote:On January 15 2014 17:30 Danglars wrote:On January 15 2014 16:35 Introvert wrote:On January 15 2014 14:44 Danglars wrote:Calling for “all hands on deck” to assist the economy, President Barack Obama is urging his Cabinet to identify ways to keep his administration relevant to people struggling in the up-and-down recovery.
With two weeks left before delivering an economy-focused State of the Union address to Congress, Obama is picking up the pace of his jobs message and demonstrating how he can advance his economic agenda administratively and through his ability to coax action from important interest groups.
“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Obama said Tuesday as he convened his first Cabinet meeting of the year.
Obama continued: ”And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.” sourceWhy wait for legislative action when you're in the executive with a pen and a phone? This president has zero respect for the system. Swore an oath to uphold the Constitution but tramples all over it. Yet he is cheered on by his side for "taking action" and "doing the right thing" against those "terrorists, the Republicans." The same lefties that call for more rules and regulations on private citizens and private entities advocate the expansion of the "fourth branch of government," the administrative state. They wish to grant their leaders with more and more executive power to use at their own discretion, outside the confines of already existing rules. It's schizophrenic. The person who adopts these two ideas at once is either in a state of contradiction with themselves or is incredibly naive. And they are the very ones turning their analysis on its tail when a Republican takes the presidency. Gotta compromise, gotta reach across the aisle, gotta reach consensus. It's okay passing Obamacare without a single Democratic vote ... Democrats are in charge, ideologically aligned with progressives. It's not okay passing the Patriot Act with large Republican majorities. ( Heck can you even imagine Bush changing the effects of the Patriot Act or even TARP 1 with a stroke of his pen, as Obama has done over a dozen times with PPACA. There would have been widespread calls for his resignation. Changing laws is constitutionally in the power of the legislative branch.) TARP you say? Yeah, I can imagine that... because it happened. You do realize what I wrote was about changing past laws with a stroke of a pen ... executive orders and agency directives. Because it didn't happen with Bush. Liberal Democrats just better at pushing the limits of the presidency and postponing/lessening backlash. Wait, are you asserting that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 authorized the transfer of money to GM and Chrysler? that GM and Chrysler qualify as financial institutions? If you want to break open the can of worms that was TARP's wording, we're going to be here a while. Bills with wide discretionary power on allocating funds is a different topic. Your concerns are really non-unique. Executive orders can, and have been for quite some time, be used to clarify enforcement of laws. It's when they in effect make new law that it really becomes controversial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement You know where the law says what employers are required to provide their employers? Yes, Obama decreed certain aspects delayed. Or all the plans canceled for no longer adhering to Obamacare? You know illegal plans under passed law? Yeah, let's make those temporarily not illegal. Individual Mandate? Yeah well the text of the law is one thing, but let's take this pen and make it go away if you have a hardship exemption due to lost coverage. Clarify the enforcement of laws is one thing, this is another. Wholesale changes of its content, dates, exemptions ... all post-passage ... has made the bill more of a mutating organism than a document. Power to amend existing law is rightfully vested in the legislature by voting process, not in the Executive. Previously no President has gone so far as to change existing law by fiat than this one. It is unprecedented despite jabbering to the contrary.
You might not realize this
But every politician has a pen and a phone.
Are you suggesting that we take the pens and phones out of politics?
Or could you perhaps be... predicting the future?
|
How A Community Bank Tripped On Footnote 1,861 Of The Volcker Rule
When people talk about the Volcker Rule, they often mention JPMorgan Chase, the giant bank where a trader recently made a bad bet that lost $6 billion. The Volcker Rule is supposed to put an end to that sort of thing, by prohibiting banks from trading with their own money.
But some banks that are very, very different from JPMorgan Chase are struggling with an obscure provision in the rule. Specifically, footnote 1,861, which bars banks from investing in something called trust-preferred securities — a rather obscure investment favored by lots of small, community banks.
Tioga State Bank is headquartered in Spencer, a village in upstate New York with a population of about 800 people. The bank mostly makes loans to local people and businesses. But Robert Fisher, bank's president, says trust-preferred securities make up a large chunk of his bank's annual income. "It's a big deal," he told me.
Nathan Stovall, who covers the banking industry for SNL Financial, says the regulators just don't want banks investing in anything that could even smell risky.
"What they're trying to do is say, 'We want you to be a lender, period. And since you're investing some of those deposits in bonds, we want it to be in really vanilla stuff,' " Stovall said.
The American Bankers Association does not consider these particular investments risky, and is challenging the rule, saying some community banks could have to close their doors over this footnote in the rules. And the regulators and Congress are reconsidering.
It turns out, it's hard to figure out which risks banks should be allowed to take, and which they shouldn't.
Link
Damn that's a lot of footnotes! Glad I don't need to read them all 
|
Forget the Volcker rule, they should just re-implement the Glass-Steagall act. Problem solved and no need for footnotes.
|
On January 17 2014 23:29 Roswell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2014 17:19 zlefin wrote:
Stupid republican ignoring the actual facts on global warming, and lying to the American people about it.
Shameful, that's what it is; shameful.
No models or predictions accounted for the standstill of global temperature since 1997, now scientists claim it will continue to pause for 30 years or so...
What are you talking about?
|
On January 18 2014 09:34 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2014 23:29 Roswell wrote:On January 17 2014 17:19 zlefin wrote:
Stupid republican ignoring the actual facts on global warming, and lying to the American people about it.
Shameful, that's what it is; shameful.
No models or predictions accounted for the standstill of global temperature since 1997, now scientists claim it will continue to pause for 30 years or so... What are you talking about?
Personally, I think he's pulling information out his backside. I can't find anywhere that shows the rise has stagnated or that it will "pause."
|
On January 17 2014 22:16 Nesto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote:
I find it very odd that wanting the rules to be followed constitutes a "religious worship of the Constitution." Do you value the first amendment? How about the fourth amendment? I know the left really doesn't care about 9th/10th amendments, but what about the first eight? Would you prefer they be followed? The appointments clause and the clause explaining the duty of the president to faithfully execute the laws are as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.
No, it's just annoying to have those hypocrites wave their constitutions in to the cameras (which they always carry around in their pockets!) when it comes to the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment, while on the other hand usually shitting over the first, 4th, 8th, 14th, 15th amendments and probably a few others as well.
Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them.
Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment.
Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else.
I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants.
The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly.
The 15th. Are you kidding me?
This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written. You get to make up things, slap some emotions on them (the last two relating specifically to "Civil Rights! OMG OMG"), and convince people that they say things they don't. Just because you want them expanded doesn't mean they are.
But then again, any non-originalism based view is bound to idiocy. If some amendments can be expanded or "re-interpreted" for "modern times" then the WHOLE thing can. Then of course the president can declare recess! Today he needs things done! of course he can take this military action with no immediate threat to country! Of course he can change laws, the ones he pushed for aren't working! Of course Gtmo is unquestionably legal, it's necessary!
Unless the courts are supposed to decide, in which case you never allowed to disagree with them, since they are in charge. Indeed, I believe 4, sometimes 5 of the justices actually feel this way. It is up to them! Of course NSA data-mining is legal! I've had that debate before. The only stable, fair way to read this document is the way it was intended.
No Republican position (or at least conservative one) that I can think of violates any of the above. The Repubs do favor the NSA, but other than that, I don't see much.
You might not realize this
But every politician has a pen and a phone.
Are you suggesting that we take the pens and phones out of politics?
Or could you perhaps be... predicting the future?
You could look at what the president said and what he meant by it. He didn't mean "I have a pen and a phone, I am going to jot down some notes and call Congress!" No, he meant "I have a pen and a phone, and if the House blocks my agenda, I'll make some calls and do it anyway."
|
United States44448 Posts
The way it was originally intended all men being born equal and getting equal legal protection certainly didn't apply to slaves. Presumably what you mean is that you can change things, but only through the amendment system included within the constitution and not by judicial interpretation.
|
But I suppose when it's time for silly buzz phrases like "amoral capitalism" to be thrown around, the time for facts to have large relevance in the discussion has passed. What exactly is "amoral capitalism"? Can you give an example of "amoral capitalism" at work and successful in modern First World society? Enron? Gone. People went to jail. Lehman Brothers? Gone. BP? 11 billion in fines and a large amount in stock value, lost, reputation, tattered. How much did the Valdiz spill cost Exxon again?
Capitalism is basically amoral (which is not to say 'immoral') by definition. Thankfully Capitalism doesn't necessarily rule the world, yet.
To be clear, I believe that Capitalism is the best way to run an economy, as long as there is a solid Democratic government and a robust Culture of values to temper its inherent amorality.
Case in point: "BP? 11 billion in fines* and a large amount in stock value lost. reputation; tattered**."
* Democracy at work
** Cultural backlash
|
On January 18 2014 10:29 KwarK wrote:
The way it was originally intended all men being born equal and getting equal legal protection certainly didn't apply to slaves. Presumably what you mean is that you can change things, but only through the amendment system included within the constitution and not by judicial interpretation.
Yes. Slavery was Constitutional before the appropriate amendments were passed. The legal process was followed, and the Constitution was changed, and now slavery is outlawed. Until the amendments, judicial interpretation was that slavery was in fact Constitutional, which it was. That is the proper process, not changing the meanings.
I'm assuming you disagree that this is the way it should be done?
|
United States44448 Posts
On January 18 2014 10:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 10:29 KwarK wrote:
The way it was originally intended all men being born equal and getting equal legal protection certainly didn't apply to slaves. Presumably what you mean is that you can change things, but only through the amendment system included within the constitution and not by judicial interpretation. Yes. Slavery was Constitutional before the appropriate amendments were passed. The legal process was followed, and the Constitution was changed, and now slavery is outlawed. Until the amendments, judicial interpretation was that slavery was in fact Constitutional, which it was. That is the proper process, not changing the meanings. I'm assuming you disagree that this is the way it should be done?
I wasn't passing judgement, I was just trying to confirm that you meant not that the original form and wording of the constitution was sacred but rather that the process of reforming and updating the constitution defined within the constitution was the only acceptable way.
|
Where's your well-regulated militia that justifies your gun ownership?
|
On January 18 2014 11:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 10:55 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2014 10:29 KwarK wrote:
The way it was originally intended all men being born equal and getting equal legal protection certainly didn't apply to slaves. Presumably what you mean is that you can change things, but only through the amendment system included within the constitution and not by judicial interpretation. Yes. Slavery was Constitutional before the appropriate amendments were passed. The legal process was followed, and the Constitution was changed, and now slavery is outlawed. Until the amendments, judicial interpretation was that slavery was in fact Constitutional, which it was. That is the proper process, not changing the meanings. I'm assuming you disagree that this is the way it should be done? I wasn't passing judgement, I was just trying to confirm that you meant not that the original form and wording of the constitution was sacred but rather that the process of reforming and updating the constitution defined within the constitution was the only acceptable way.
Yes.
Igne, I'll get back to you later. I'm off to a movie, but don't think I'm ignoring your question, because it's an important one based on a common misunderstanding/misreading, though I'm sure you've heard that before.
|
On January 18 2014 10:18 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 09:34 IgnE wrote:On January 17 2014 23:29 Roswell wrote:On January 17 2014 17:19 zlefin wrote:
Stupid republican ignoring the actual facts on global warming, and lying to the American people about it.
Shameful, that's what it is; shameful.
No models or predictions accounted for the standstill of global temperature since 1997, now scientists claim it will continue to pause for 30 years or so... What are you talking about? Personally, I think he's pulling information out his backside. I can't find anywhere that shows the rise has stagnated or that it will "pause."
If the NYTimes has this http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html please please me. I could give you 600 other liberal leaning websites as well.
|
United States41117 Posts
The company behind the massive chemical spill that made tap water unsafe for more than 300,000 West Virginians has filed for bankruptcy, according to documents obtained by The Huffington Post.
According to bankruptcy filings, Freedom Industries, wholly owned by Chemstream Holdings Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday. Freedom Industries owns the storage facility responsible for leaking up to 7,500 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (a coal-cleaning chemical also known as crude MCHM) into West Virginia's Elk River.
Hundreds of thousands of people in nine counties were given orders not to use water for bathing or drinking for days as the company scrambled to clean up, exposing disturbing vulnerabilities in the water supply and a lack of data about hazardous chemicals and where they're stored. A second site owned by the company was also cited for safety violations shortly after the spill.
A representative for Freedom Industries told HuffPost that the company would not be commenting on the bankruptcy.
Source
|
Is it just me, or did roswell just cite an article which repudiates his claim?
|
On January 18 2014 15:59 zlefin wrote:
Is it just me, or did roswell just cite an article which repudiates his claim?
Indeed, the article claims that global warming will likely accelerate in the near future, citing the past trend of a similar "plateau" that occurred during the 1950s-1970s followed by a period of rapid warming.
|
United States41117 Posts
|
So gonna watch that. After all is said and done, and by god did this man say a lot of stupid shit - contrary to his own beliefs - he is still a man and human being.
|
On January 18 2014 10:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2014 22:16 Nesto wrote:On January 17 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote:
I find it very odd that wanting the rules to be followed constitutes a "religious worship of the Constitution." Do you value the first amendment? How about the fourth amendment? I know the left really doesn't care about 9th/10th amendments, but what about the first eight? Would you prefer they be followed? The appointments clause and the clause explaining the duty of the president to faithfully execute the laws are as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.
No, it's just annoying to have those hypocrites wave their constitutions in to the cameras (which they always carry around in their pockets!) when it comes to the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment, while on the other hand usually shitting over the first, 4th, 8th, 14th, 15th amendments and probably a few others as well. Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them. Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment. Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else. I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants. The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly. The 15th. Are you kidding me? This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written.
You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other?
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case.
Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that?
|
United States44448 Posts
On January 18 2014 13:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The company behind the massive chemical spill that made tap water unsafe for more than 300,000 West Virginians has filed for bankruptcy, according to documents obtained by The Huffington Post.
According to bankruptcy filings, Freedom Industries, wholly owned by Chemstream Holdings Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday. Freedom Industries owns the storage facility responsible for leaking up to 7,500 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (a coal-cleaning chemical also known as crude MCHM) into West Virginia's Elk River.
Hundreds of thousands of people in nine counties were given orders not to use water for bathing or drinking for days as the company scrambled to clean up, exposing disturbing vulnerabilities in the water supply and a lack of data about hazardous chemicals and where they're stored. A second site owned by the company was also cited for safety violations shortly after the spill.
A representative for Freedom Industries told HuffPost that the company would not be commenting on the bankruptcy. Source
Let me guess, they didn't have insurance covering this kind of accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
