The want a more imperial presidency?

nice to see that you are hell bent on being a 3rd world nation

maybe Russia will pay you more welfare, oh wait, they most likely will put you in a prison


Please define failure.

Russia is the 9th largest economy in the world.

The second most powerful military.

Number 1 in education. (with the qualifier that they have been accused of cheating so we'll see where that lands them.

I keep hearing about this epic failure that is Russia and. . .it's simply not there. They have a stable government and have for a while. The USSR didn't hold together for a myraid of reasons but. . .failure is a strong word.

And we keep hearing about how China is kicking our asses with a system that is a known failure. It must suck when a plan that is doomed to fail is still succeeding over the one you hold dearest in life.
 
You don't actually know what a 3rd world nation IS do you?

LOL to be fair I know a LOT of people in the US who don't actually know what a 3rd world nation is.....

They might THINK they know...but we both know you ain't got a fuckin' clue till you get that smell all up in your sniffer...eat some of that local food and drink you some of that water, don't forget yer iodine tablets now LMFAO!! ;):D
 
LOL to be fair I know a LOT of people in the US who don't actually know what a 3rd world nation is.....

They might THINK they know...but we both know you ain't got a fuckin' clue till you get that smell all up in your sniffer...eat some of that local food and drink you some of that water, don't forget yer iodine tablets now LMFAO!! ;):D

As true as that is the term does mean something both technically (not that ANYBODY uses the technical definition) and in common language. And the term doesn't mean Not America.
 
Can you say, Dictator

Obama Dares GOP: Go Ahead, "Have a Vote on Whether What I'm Doing Is Legal…I Will Veto, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”
| MRCTV
mrctv‎ - 5 hours ago
Pres. Obama is daring Republicans to vote on whether or not his executive actions are legal.
 
As true as that is the term does mean something both technically (not that ANYBODY uses the technical definition) and in common language. And the term doesn't mean Not America.

IIRC, "Third World" dates from the Cold War and means all countries not part of the Western Bloc or the Communist Bloc. Practically all countries so designated were former colonies of European powers, of which those in Africa and Asia did not gain independence until after WWII. Third World countries were the battleground of the Cold War; e.g., we were only involved in Vietnam to keep the Communist Bloc from expanding.
 
Last edited:
Obama Dares GOP: Go Ahead, "Have a Vote on Whether What I'm Doing Is Legal…I Will Veto, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”
| MRCTV
mrctv‎ - 5 hours ago
Pres. Obama is daring Republicans to vote on whether or not his executive actions are legal.

He gets to do that, and he gets to veto the result; that's all perfectly constitutional. And only a court can decide whether his immigration EOs are illegal.
 
IIRC, "Third World" dates from the Cold War and means all countries not part of the Western Bloc or the Communist Bloc. Practically all countries so designated were former colonies of European powers, of which those in Africa and Asia did not gain independence until after WWII. Third World countries were the battleground of the Cold War; e.g., we were only involved in Vietnam to keep the Communist Bloc from expanding.

Which is why I pointed out that NOBODY used the term properly anymore. It means hell hole in the common vernacular.

The American left has flirted with totalitarianism most of its history, Communism, Socialism, and Nazism. Many of them believe they failed because they weren't running them. They have no problem dictating political terms to Americans.

If that's what you want to call progress fine, I think everybody at this point is through debating terms with you. But plenty of those ideas either failed because I wasn't running them or the technology hadn't caught up. At least the things you define as those terms which is really just all the same thing to you.

He doesn't get to grant rights and benefits to people however.:rolleyes:

What precisely can't an EO do? It seems to be a matter of a lot of contention since nobody wrote it down with any clarity. But you know.
 
http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/24/president-obama-is-apparently-not-imperial-enough-for-the-gop/

The author makes the point that for all the chest pounding about the Imperial Presidency of King Barack the I, the GOP is a little silent when he uses extra-constitutional authority to bomb people.

Kind of validates some of the Botany Boy's GOP=Moar Whar statements.

This is what pisses me off about the GOP. If they were truly conservative, I think they'd run everything, because there is a lot to like about true conservatism.

But the GOP has shown a lack of concern over an over-militarized police force, they want government in the home (gay marriage, etc.), they want the federal government to tell the states that the voters can't legalize pot, they showed remarkable fiscal irresponsibility during the last Republican Presidency (not that Dems are any better), and believing we need to police the whole damned world.

It's like bizarro conservatism.
 
Be advised the 1033 Program was instituted during the Clinton administration by a Congress with Republican majorities in both houses. The theory was, if we were going to expect our local police to conduct the War on Drugs they should look and be equipped like warriors. Time has shown this to be a big mistake in my view. I have written several letters to my representatives condemning the militarization of the civil police force, as well as the federal police force. There is a bipartisan movement in the Congress to end this program.

I would support ending that. There is the potential for too much abuse. And, frankly, I have a genuine fear of living in a police state, even a "benevolent" one.
 
The larger problem is where the departments are getting the money for their toys. It comes from asset seizures of suspected, not convicted individuals. There is a program to share the wealth between feds and the locals. If a small local department cannot spend it all at once as required they share the wealth with a neighbor who then cuts them in on some future strong-armed robbery.
 
The larger problem is where the departments are getting the money for their toys. It comes from asset seizures of suspected, not convicted individuals. There is a program to share the wealth between feds and the locals. If a small local department cannot spend it all at once as required they share the wealth with a neighbor who then cuts them in on some future strong-armed robbery.
Don't get me started. It's state-sanctioned robbery. Plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
Don't get me started. It's state sanctioned robbery. plain and simple.

Its been going on for decades.

1989ish: A friend caught a ride from a co-worker home. He had $600 in his pocket to pay for an engine for his VW. She wanted to stop at a bar on the way home. He sat, had a beer. She went to the restroom where, apparently she sold a small (user) amount of cocaine to an undercover.

The frisked him, took his 600 for being there with her. He showed the judge the bill for the engine, the withdrawal receipt from the bank, his deposit slip and his pay-stubs.

They kept his money and assigned him many hours of community service and told him they were doing him a favor not prosecuting him for dealing.

It did not help that he actually looked like Bull from Night Court. It was sort of plausible that he was muscle. Except she was dealing to support her habit, not as a career and the amounts we are talking about were like $50 and $100 at time.
 
Trust me . . . those were the most sarcastic quotation marks in the history of quotation marks. Heh.

I needed..."ellipses"...to set it off, and quite possibly, a comma, or two.
 
Back
Top