Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chewybacca
Trad climber
Montana, Whitefish
|
|
TGT, that is the most pathetic troll I've ever seen on this site. Why are you such an as#@&%e?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"Would anyone object if I nuke this thread and step aside so someone else can create another dumping ground called "Stoopid Dumfook politard BS" or the like?"
Not me. Nuke away. I'll be there, regardless.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
"Obama vetoed it. Why? Just because he felt like it."
Yep, that's what I call leadership, too. We don't need that damn thing, not one little bit.
Obama said that the Keystone XL pipeline would be approved if it “does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”
Just another example of Obama stating he would do something, based on certain conditions, and once those conditions were met, he backpedals. He lies.
Don't fret about it too much...Hillary will be much more to your liking, and she's just around the corner.
Much more to my liking? How so?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Netanyahu has been saying the same things about Iran that he incorrectly said about Iraq in 2002 as he sold the Iraq war to the U.S.
Apparently, he had the same intel as the US... and Britain, Germany, Russia, China, and France.
George Tenet, George W. Bush's CIA director, assured the President that the case for Saddam possessing WMD was “a slam dunk.” In this assessment, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, asserted with “high confidence” that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this judgment. Even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he dispose of the WMD he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Edward...Bush also had intel via the FBI that Al Quaeda was going to crash planes into American buildings...Why didn't he act on that intel...Lazy government worker...
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
I said awhile ago I would not nuke this thread. However, I seriously doubt someone will ever want to look up a post from here more than a day or two old.
So, I'll put it to a vote:
Would anyone object if I nuke this thread and step aside so someone else can create another dumping ground called "Stoopid Dumfook politard BS" or the like?
I would object, this thread is just fine
besides, there is no such thing as political "debate" on Supertopo
what we do have is everyone, myself included, posting purely partisan
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Bush also had intel via the FBI that Al Quaeda was going to crash planes into American buildings...Why didn't he act on that intel?
You mean other than maintaining the FBI's 70 full field investigations throughout the US, related to Bin Ladin? Or the CIA's on-going efforts related to Bin Ladin?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Ben Carson. Another one of your fellow Republicans.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
I suggest that some of you get familiar with Mario Draghi, he could have a much bigger
impact on a lot of our futures. Will he be wearing Zegnas or Zanottis?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Forbes ranks Draghi as the 8th most powerful person in the World.
Forbes also ranks Putin over Obama.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Forbes also ranks Putin over Obama.
Forbes hasn't been paying attention lately, I take it.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Authoritarians Love Dictators over any Liberal Constitutionally restrained President
They wish the President would have the same power as Putin, but only a Republican President
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
That explains why Obama had the top spot in '09, '11 and '12.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Well, let's be real, a lame duck pres with the veto as his primary tool is not particularly
relevant. And if the Supreme Court holds against Obamacare then he won't have much
of a legacy. If Democrats are so smart why couldn't they craft a law that was constitutional?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Well, maybe you don't have any truck with 'legacy' but here's a news flash: no legacy means you didn't do diddly.
You can play games with semantics all you want but that's just the way the world, and history, works.
Sorry to break it to you.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Reilly
I guess you haven't bothered to look into this case
It's about the interpretation of 4 words.
If the intent of the law is upheld, then those 4 words don't matter.
If they want to cause a big stink and repeal the law for Political points, they can.
Is the State a State, or is the State the United States.
Their victims that have been harmed by those 4 words have been discredited.
They could easily fix the law by changing the words
But the Republicans won't allow any changes out of spite.
Why not just fix it?
and add more cost controls
how about working within the law to make it better
Republicans, answer that.
They can even rename it
"Boehner Care"
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Craig, no I haven't looked at this as I my jaundiced view of law doesn't make me a happy
camper when I see what is right being subverted by semantics. I'm pissed at the Dems for
not crafting a constitutional law and I'm pissed at these phuktards who are seeking to over-
turn it.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
If the intent of the law is upheld, then those 4 words don't matter.
That violates judicial canons of statutory construction. If one construction makes some words irrelevant, but a second construction makes all words relevant, courts are to choose that second construction of the statute. Otherwise, courts could ignore words like "not" if they decided they liked the statute better that way.
Before you say that never happens, I'll give you an example where it does. In the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (the current Bankruptcy Code, with amendments) Section 361 provides ways that a secured creditor's interest may and may not be adequately protected. When the legislation was first drafted, it included one method (allowance of an administrative expense) as a permissible adequate protection. The final bill changed that to say that an administrative expense may not be used as adequate protection. The legislative history reported on the original bill, not the final law, so if one consulted the legislative history, one would conclude that Congress intended to allow what the statute said was disallowed.
Using the legislative history, parties attempted to say that Congress intended to allow what was explicitly disallowed. Needless to say, those arguments got nowhere.
I still think the ACA will be upheld, probably on a 5-4 or 6-3 vote, because the court has a majority that is exceedingly deferential to the legislative branch, but it will be interesting to see how they get around those four words.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!