Originally posted by sonshipI'm not sure what you are arguing here. It seems to me that you are advocating side stepping the system to "get things done".A President that has more and more power everyday.
Perhaps it seems that way to you because there is a Congress that is largly dead set on keeping the President in a straight jacket not being able to do anything. So when he avails himself of Constitutional alternatives to work around obstructionists, its looks like a power grab to you. ...[text shortened]... hip![/i] "
There's some corruption there too as the low approval rating of Congress suggests.
If that is the case, then I would assume you would be in favor of one man running the show. With a king there is no 'obstructionism", just his way or the gallows.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
―James Madison
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by whodey
I'm not sure what you are arguing here. It seems to me that you are advocating side stepping the system to "get things done".
If that is the case, then I would assume you would be in favor of one man running the show. With a king there is no 'obstructionism", just his way or the gallows.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If ang ...[text shortened]... ent to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
―James Madison
I'm not sure what you are arguing here. It seems to me that you are advocating side stepping the system to "get things done".
Your founding fathers which I am sure you are quite confident in, put INTO the constitution some provisions for such. I said "some".
You have heard of the veto.
And I might add that they also balanced that with some ways Congress can get around the president if need be to also get things done.
I am no constitutional scholar. But I know that much.
If that is the case, then I would assume you would be in favor of one man running the show. With a king there is no 'obstructionism", just his way or the gallows.
No, it does not mean that I would go to the other EXTREME .
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Since I am neither arguing for anarchy or dictatorship I don't have a comment.
I just point out that it is a talking point from some that the president is over reaching his authority. But I think for him to do anything at all, too many in Congress have considered an over reach of authority on some weird general principle.
Originally posted by sonshipTake immigration, for example.I'm not sure what you are arguing here. It seems to me that you are advocating side stepping the system to "get things done".
Your founding fathers which I am sure you are quite confident in, put INTO the constitution some provisions for such. I said "some".
You have heard of the veto.
And I might add that they also balanced that wi ...[text shortened]... too many in Congress has considered an over reach of authority on some weird general principle.
Obama, before writing Executive Orders to allow illegal immigration, said repeatedly that he could not unilaterally bypass Congress, but then he did.
He said that if he bypassed Congress he would by side stepping the law and that we were a nation of laws, not of men.
He has condemned himself.
FDR is the Prog that most, like Obama, idolize. For it was FDR who locked away Japanese Americans during WW2 via an Executive Order
Obviously we all concede that this was a crime against these people that was racially motivated. My only point here is that this sort of thing has been going on a long time and is virtually unchecked.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyDemocracy has been messy in the US for a long time?
Take immigration, for example.
Obama, before writing Executive Orders to allow illegal immigration, said repeatedly that he could not unilaterally bypass Congress, but then he did.
He said that if he bypassed Congress he would by side stepping the law and that we were a nation of laws, not of men.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wD5Y88UWno
He has ...[text shortened]... point here is that this sort of thing has been going on a long time and is virtually unchecked.
No argument there.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by redbadgerMy you are an unpleasant character.
so do all the Tory scum
It's one of the least appealing features of those on the so called left, that they
demonise and dehumanise those on the so called 'right'.
The left is not without it's share of demons and flaws... Which party was it that
lied to the country and parliament to justify an unjustifiable war, executed that
war atrociously badly, and tried [and succeed] in taking away so many vital freedoms
to supposedly tackle a terrorist threat they seemed hell bent on making worse?
Oh yes, the Labour party.
EDIT: and this is still politics and not spirituality or philosophy...
So why is this thread still in spirituality?
28 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeTony Blair was Labour?
My you are an unpleasant character.
It's one of the least appealing features of those on the so called left, that they
demonise and dehumanise those on the so called 'right'.
The left is not without it's share of demons and flaws... Which party was it that
lied to the country and parliament to justify an unjustifiable war, executed that
war a ...[text shortened]... l politics and not spirituality or philosophy...
So why is this thread still in spirituality?
In this country, America, he'd be labeled a conservative, which is on the right.
George W. was America's Tony Blair. George also did all those things you mention, and he was a Republican (conservative).
Maybe that's why Labour is failing. It's a sham. They call themselves Left, but they're really Right. It's a genius strategy, I must admit. Thank goodness the Republicans haven't figured this move out yet.
28 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyYeah, you're talking about it, but nobody else actually sees it happening.
Democracy? What are you talking about?
I'm talking about subverting the system by having the Executive take on legislative functions.
You are Chicken Little. Or the little boy who cried Wolf. Take your pick.
29 May 15
Originally posted by SuzianneI don't see that Obama and his left wing Democrats have made anything better. In fact, the world is a worse place than when GW Bush left office. 😏
Tony Blair was Labour?
In this country, America, he'd be labeled a conservative, which is on the right.
George W. was America's Tony Blair. George also did all those things you mention, and he was a Republican (conservative).
Maybe that's why Labour is failing. It's a sham. They call themselves Left, but they're really Right. It's a genius strategy, I must admit. Thank goodness the Republicans haven't figured this move out yet.