01 Nov 2011, 12:44 pm
01 Nov 2011, 12:58 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
01 Nov 2011, 2:58 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Then I gotta wonder what exactly is it that you do to help your country that makes you entitled to a say in this...
It is very simple. The U.S. Constitution does not grant the President the power to forgive loans are change the terms of repayments on loans. It is that simple....
The President can issue pardons, but not loan forgiveness.....
ruveyn
Anyone else having lag issues on this forum today?
Okay seriously, ruveyn does have a point, though he's probably using the wrong examples. A better example would be the prescription drug shortage, which in reality was caused by the uncertainty of Obamacare.
I knew it! Obamacare is responsible for the uncertainty that causes the McRib to only be a short term item at McDonald's!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
01 Nov 2011, 3:14 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
01 Nov 2011, 4:28 pm
01 Nov 2011, 6:05 pm
01 Nov 2011, 8:56 pm
02 Nov 2011, 12:43 am
DeaconBlues wrote:
No point, visagrunt; mere facts may be ignored, as they run counter to the "Imperial President" narrative ruveyn evidently wishes to write (as evinced further by his simply ignoring the fact, pointed out several times now, that the President has not in fact issued an executive order to forgive student debt, or any other debt for that matter).
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
Actually George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush isn't the first time we had a father being President then years later the son being President.
In fact look at our 2nd President John Adams, and his son John Quincy Adams whom was our 6th US President.
This argument of an Imperial dynasty is a bunch of balony.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
02 Nov 2011, 12:50 am
Inuyasha wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
No point, visagrunt; mere facts may be ignored, as they run counter to the "Imperial President" narrative ruveyn evidently wishes to write (as evinced further by his simply ignoring the fact, pointed out several times now, that the President has not in fact issued an executive order to forgive student debt, or any other debt for that matter).
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
Actually George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush isn't the first time we had a father being President then years later the son being President.
In fact look at our 2nd President John Adams, and his son John Quincy Adams whom was our 6th US President.
This argument of an Imperial dynasty is a bunch of balony.
But John Quincy wasn't separated from his dad in the succession of the presidency by one other president like George and George W were. The point was, there would have been Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton in the White House. It certainly would have appeared to younger voters that the office of the presidency rests in the hands of dynastic families.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
02 Nov 2011, 12:58 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
No point, visagrunt; mere facts may be ignored, as they run counter to the "Imperial President" narrative ruveyn evidently wishes to write (as evinced further by his simply ignoring the fact, pointed out several times now, that the President has not in fact issued an executive order to forgive student debt, or any other debt for that matter).
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
Actually George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush isn't the first time we had a father being President then years later the son being President.
In fact look at our 2nd President John Adams, and his son John Quincy Adams whom was our 6th US President.
This argument of an Imperial dynasty is a bunch of balony.
But John Quincy wasn't separated from his dad in the succession of the presidency by one other president like George and George W were. The point was, there would have been Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton in the White House. It certainly would have appeared to younger voters that the office of the presidency rests in the hands of dynastic families.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So?
Jeb Bush has already indicated he wasn't interested.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
02 Nov 2011, 1:06 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
No point, visagrunt; mere facts may be ignored, as they run counter to the "Imperial President" narrative ruveyn evidently wishes to write (as evinced further by his simply ignoring the fact, pointed out several times now, that the President has not in fact issued an executive order to forgive student debt, or any other debt for that matter).
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
Actually George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush isn't the first time we had a father being President then years later the son being President.
In fact look at our 2nd President John Adams, and his son John Quincy Adams whom was our 6th US President.
This argument of an Imperial dynasty is a bunch of balony.
But John Quincy wasn't separated from his dad in the succession of the presidency by one other president like George and George W were. The point was, there would have been Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton in the White House. It certainly would have appeared to younger voters that the office of the presidency rests in the hands of dynastic families.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So?
Jeb Bush has already indicated he wasn't interested.
He has enough sense to realize that his running would look like his family was becoming a presidential dynasty.
At least for now.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
02 Nov 2011, 1:13 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
No point, visagrunt; mere facts may be ignored, as they run counter to the "Imperial President" narrative ruveyn evidently wishes to write (as evinced further by his simply ignoring the fact, pointed out several times now, that the President has not in fact issued an executive order to forgive student debt, or any other debt for that matter).
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
Actually George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush isn't the first time we had a father being President then years later the son being President.
In fact look at our 2nd President John Adams, and his son John Quincy Adams whom was our 6th US President.
This argument of an Imperial dynasty is a bunch of balony.
But John Quincy wasn't separated from his dad in the succession of the presidency by one other president like George and George W were. The point was, there would have been Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton in the White House. It certainly would have appeared to younger voters that the office of the presidency rests in the hands of dynastic families.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So?
Jeb Bush has already indicated he wasn't interested.
He has enough sense to realize that his running would look like his family was becoming a presidential dynasty.
At least for now.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
He wasn't interested in having his character assassinated by the mainstream media or having his family harassed.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
02 Nov 2011, 1:20 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
No point, visagrunt; mere facts may be ignored, as they run counter to the "Imperial President" narrative ruveyn evidently wishes to write (as evinced further by his simply ignoring the fact, pointed out several times now, that the President has not in fact issued an executive order to forgive student debt, or any other debt for that matter).
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
Actually George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush isn't the first time we had a father being President then years later the son being President.
In fact look at our 2nd President John Adams, and his son John Quincy Adams whom was our 6th US President.
This argument of an Imperial dynasty is a bunch of balony.
But John Quincy wasn't separated from his dad in the succession of the presidency by one other president like George and George W were. The point was, there would have been Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton in the White House. It certainly would have appeared to younger voters that the office of the presidency rests in the hands of dynastic families.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So?
Jeb Bush has already indicated he wasn't interested.
He has enough sense to realize that his running would look like his family was becoming a presidential dynasty.
At least for now.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
He wasn't interested in having his character assassinated by the mainstream media or having his family harassed.
How would that be any different from what any other presidential candidate goes through?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
02 Nov 2011, 1:30 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
No point, visagrunt; mere facts may be ignored, as they run counter to the "Imperial President" narrative ruveyn evidently wishes to write (as evinced further by his simply ignoring the fact, pointed out several times now, that the President has not in fact issued an executive order to forgive student debt, or any other debt for that matter).
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
One could, in fact, make a fair argument that the election of Barack Obama prevented an Imperial Presidency. (Like so: had Hillary Clinton won in 2008, come 2012 there would be people of voting age who had never known a time when there wasn't either a Bush or a Clinton in office, and might have taken that to be the order of things. Thus, the Republican Party would have been urged to run Jeb Bush in either 2012 or 2016; by the end of his first term, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins would have been old enough to run, and so forth. We might, plausibly, have wound up with a situation wherein it seemed "natural" to choose between one of two imperial families for the Presidency...)
Actually George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush isn't the first time we had a father being President then years later the son being President.
In fact look at our 2nd President John Adams, and his son John Quincy Adams whom was our 6th US President.
This argument of an Imperial dynasty is a bunch of balony.
But John Quincy wasn't separated from his dad in the succession of the presidency by one other president like George and George W were. The point was, there would have been Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton in the White House. It certainly would have appeared to younger voters that the office of the presidency rests in the hands of dynastic families.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So?
Jeb Bush has already indicated he wasn't interested.
He has enough sense to realize that his running would look like his family was becoming a presidential dynasty.
At least for now.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
He wasn't interested in having his character assassinated by the mainstream media or having his family harassed.
How would that be any different from what any other presidential candidate goes through?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Jeb Bush decided not to run for that reason, it's his choice. You want to talk about imperialism or Presidents with a narcistic complex...
According to various reports last week, the State Department spent $70,000 on copies of Barack Obama’s three lauded literary masterpieces (Dreams from My Father, The Audacity of Hope and Of Thee I Sing) to stock library shelves or to pass out as Christmas presents from U.S. embassies. The administration claims the book distribution helps to “broker talks on important foreign policy matters.” That especially makes sense as a defense of Of Thee I Sing, which just happens to be a children’s book (although, to be fair, royalties on that book go to charity).
Supposedly, the White House had no knowledge of the State Department decision to spend taxpayer dollars on purchases that personally benefit Obama. (As one writer put it, “You pay … Obama reaps the royalties.“) Sheesh, not a lot of communication goes on in the Obama administration, does it?
But Obama can’t claim to be ignorant now — unless he, like his AG Eric Holder, doesn’t read his own correspondence. Republican Rep. Dave Schweikert of Arizona yesterday sent a letter to the president to tell him to knock it off. Wrote Schweikert:
According to various reports last week, the State Department spent $70,000 on copies of Barack Obama’s three lauded literary masterpieces (Dreams from My Father, The Audacity of Hope and Of Thee I Sing) to stock library shelves or to pass out as Christmas presents from U.S. embassies. The administration claims the book distribution helps to “broker talks on important foreign policy matters.” That especially makes sense as a defense of Of Thee I Sing, which just happens to be a children’s book (although, to be fair, royalties on that book go to charity).
Supposedly, the White House had no knowledge of the State Department decision to spend taxpayer dollars on purchases that personally benefit Obama. (As one writer put it, “You pay … Obama reaps the royalties.“) Sheesh, not a lot of communication goes on in the Obama administration, does it?
But Obama can’t claim to be ignorant now — unless he, like his AG Eric Holder, doesn’t read his own correspondence. Republican Rep. Dave Schweikert of Arizona yesterday sent a letter to the president to tell him to knock it off. Wrote Schweikert:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/01/r ... ey-please/
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
02 Nov 2011, 1:49 am
(Sigh) 
So he sent his books as Christmas presents. To read some sort of narcissistic personality disorder into it is reaching. Schweikert and other Republicans just want to make hay.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
02 Nov 2011, 11:22 am
