Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Everything Obama Is Not...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tsquare
    started a topic Everything Obama Is Not...

    Everything Obama Is Not...

    Even were this person a Democrat, I would be forced to support them...

    (Not holding my breath on a Democrat coming even close to this type of thing... see the last paragraph)

    Note: All emphasis is mine and mine alone

    “I am ambling — running suggests unseemly ardor — for president. It is axiomatic that anyone who nowadays will do what is necessary in order to become president thereby reveals character traits, including delusions of adequacy and obsessive compulsive disorder, that should disqualify him or her from proximity to powers concentrated in the executive branch. Therefore, my campaign will initially consist of driving around the Obnoxiously Entitled Four — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — trying to interest their 3.8 percent of America’s population in a minimalist president.

    “Candidates are constantly asked, ‘Where will you take the country?’ My answer is: ‘Nowhere.’ The country is not a parcel to be ‘taken’ anywhere. It is the spontaneous order of 316 million people making billions of daily decisions, cooperatively contracting together, moving the country in gloriously unplanned directions.

    “To another inane question, ‘How will you create jobs?,’ my answer will be: ‘I won’t.’ Other than by doing whatever the chief executive can to reduce the regulatory state’s impediments to industriousness. I will administer no major economic regulations — those with $100 million economic impacts — that Congress has not voted on. Legislators should be explicitly complicit in burdens they mandate.

    “Congress, defined by the Constitution’s Article I, is properly the first, the initiating branch of government. So, I will veto no bill merely because I disagree with the policy it implements. I will wield the veto power only on constitutional grounds — when Congress legislates beyond its constitutionally enumerated powers, correctly construed, as they have not been since the New Deal. So I expect to cast more vetoes than the 2,564 cast by all previous presidents.

    “My judicial nominees will seek to narrow Congress’s use of its power to regulate commerce as an excuse for minutely regulating Americans’ lives. My nominees will broaden the judicial recognition of Americans’ ‘privileges or immunities,’ the rights of national citizenship mentioned in the 14th Amendment and the unenumerated rights referred to by the Ninth.

    “In a radio address to the nation, President Franklin Roosevelt urged Americans to tell him their troubles. Please do not tell me yours. Tell them to your spouse, friends, clergy — not to a politician who is far away, who doesn’t know you and whose job description does not include Empathizer in Chief. ‘I feel your pain,’ Bill Clinton vowed. I won’t insult your intelligence by similarly pretending to feel yours.

    “A congenial society is one in which most people most of the time, and all politicians almost all of the time, say, when asked about almost everything: ‘This is none of my business.’ If as president I am asked what I think about the death of a rock star, or the imbecilic opinions of rich blowhards who own professional sports teams, I will say: ‘Americans should have no interest in my thoughts about such things, if I had any.’ I will try not to come to the attention of any television camera more than once a week, and only that often if I am convinced that I can speak without violating what will be my administration’s motto: ‘Don’t speak unless you can improve the silence.’

    “I will not ruin any more American evenings with televised State of the Union addresses. I will mail my thoughts on that subject to Congress ‘from time to time,’ as the Constitution directs. This was good enough for Jefferson and every subsequent president until Woodrow Wilson, the first president who believed, as progressives do, that the nation cannot function without constant presidential tutoring and hectoring.

    “This country has waged many wars since it last actually declared war, on June 5, 1942, against Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. If it is necessary to use military force, I shall, if exigencies permit, give Congress the pleasure of collaboration.

    “Finally, there have been 44 presidencies before the one I moderately aspire to administer, and there will be many more than 44 after it. Mine will be a success if, a century hence, Americans remember me as dimly as they remember Grover Cleveland, the last Democratic president with proper understanding of this office’s place in our constitutional order.”
    Now who here, other than our hard core leftists, wouldn't support a candidate like this?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...7b9_story.html

  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    Obama spends more issuing directive to ignore our immigration laws than he spends on enforcing them. It would be very simple and inexpensive to enforce our immigration laws. All you have to do is start jailing those who employ illegal immigrants. In a short time, there would be no jobs for them here and they would go home on their own. This administration has actively and vocally said it will not enforce laws it disagrees with. That is an impeachable offense.
    I think jailing a few of the employers would do more to stop illegal immigration than any other thing. Set an example, with a few, and that would change things. The only reason American employers keep hiring and working the illegals is because they know seldom are these things caught and tried. And then the penalty probably is not much. That should be changed if we are ever gonna be serious about the problem. Obviously we have not been serious about it since Ike put 50 cals out west to stop em. We never had much of a problem with illegals to my knowledge until we turned a blind eye to it, for the sake of American business who wanted the cheapest labor they could find.

    How hard is it for the gov't to have a workable guest worker program? We went to the moon, and we can't do this?

    The idea of not enforcing laws a president does not agree with, but other congresses passed and another president signed it into law should warrant a removal from office of that president. It is part of his duty to enforce and uphold the laws of this land. That congress does not take care of this, says to me all of these men are crooks, criminals, and apparently they don't have to obey the constitution, while we do. We can be imprisoned, yet they are above the law. This is a fundamental breakdown of the rule of law. This is hardly different from the way 3rd world nations operate. And we condemn them, as we do little different here. The hypocrisy is unbelievable and it should be untenable. That shining light on a hill is shining over a cesspool. Yet we have, or they have the nerve to criticize and go after other crooks who run other nations?

    Leave a comment:


  • Imawhosure
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    You still haven't answered my question, OMD. Or do you think Congress would impeach a president for failing to spend all funds to enforce a given law to the letter?

    That method -"lack of funding"- has been used by both parties' executives, if they do not care to enforce a given law. Impeachment would set a precedent and expose both parties' executives to very short terms in office, unless they have conviction-proof majority in the Senate. An opposition party in the House would still guarantee a deadlock in most congressional sessions, with nearly endless committee and investigation hearings on how they might nail the opposition's president for "failing to uphold the law".
    Radcenter, I feel that is a bogus analogy. EXAMPLE--------------> If someone kills a child molester and escapes, the President insists that for moral purposes he will not put the FBI on his trail, is the Presidents choice. He just will not fund what, in his/her opinion feels morally questionable.

    But, what if a police officer in Bum Fu** Egypt America runs across this person, and arrests him? It is not up to the President to demand this person is let go, it is up to a judge or jury to decide the fate. If the President demands someone be set free after breaking our laws, then the President has NOT enforced the laws, therefore.........not the constitution.

    That is the difference.

    Turning a blind eye is one thing, and may even be the Presidents right. Forcing everyone to turn a blind eye with him/her is something else, and letting people go that have broken our laws is totally unacceptable.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    You still haven't answered my question, OMD. Or do you think Congress would impeach a president for failing to spend all funds to enforce a given law to the letter?

    That method -"lack of funding"- has been used by both parties' executives, if they do not care to enforce a given law. Impeachment would set a precedent and expose both parties' executives to very short terms in office, unless they have conviction-proof majority in the Senate. An opposition party in the House would still guarantee a deadlock in most congressional sessions, with nearly endless committee and investigation hearings on how they might nail the opposition's president for "failing to uphold the law".
    Obama spends more issuing directive to ignore our immigration laws than he spends on enforcing them. It would be very simple and inexpensive to enforce our immigration laws. All you have to do is start jailing those who employ illegal immigrants. In a short time, there would be no jobs for them here and they would go home on their own. This administration has actively and vocally said it will not enforce laws it disagrees with. That is an impeachable offense.

    Leave a comment:


  • radcentr
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    You still haven't answered my question, OMD. Or do you think Congress would impeach a president for failing to spend all funds to enforce a given law to the letter?

    That method -"lack of funding"- has been used by both parties' executives, if they do not care to enforce a given law. Impeachment would set a precedent and expose both parties' executives to very short terms in office, unless they have conviction-proof majority in the Senate. An opposition party in the House would still guarantee a deadlock in most congressional sessions, with nearly endless committee and investigation hearings on how they might nail the opposition's president for "failing to uphold the law".

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    It is written in the Constitution. Obama swore on Lincoln's Bible to uphold the Constitution. He has not done so. I believe that is an impeachable offense.

    Article 2 section 3
    Yeah, for me it is an impeachable offense, and the last several presidents have been just as guilty. So it's not just the crazy loon dems, but the right side team as well who couldn't care less about this Constitution. And this has been going on for years.

    We don't so much have a balance of powers as we have the office of the president slowing morphing into a monarchy, with far too much power being held by just a single man, which may be challenged rhetorically but seldom by any of the other two branches of gov't. And certainly not the 4th branch of gov't, the Press, who are supposed to keep an eye on these treasonous men.

    Which is why I will continue to vote against each and every politician running for re-election. As I did last time. The solution is not found in your team oldman, nor in the other team. Neither team is fit to govern as they see the constitution as something to be flanked.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    Simply make it a law that the executive (president) must enforce the law to the letter. Instead of spending less/enforcing less, as Obama does with current immigration law.

    Do you think the Congress, whether dominated by D or R's, will pass "enforcement to the letter, along with funding to accomplish all enforcement"?

    Neither do I.
    It is written in the Constitution. Obama swore on Lincoln's Bible to uphold the Constitution. He has not done so. I believe that is an impeachable offense.

    Article 2 section 3

    Section. 3.

    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

    Leave a comment:


  • radcentr
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    Simply make it a law that the executive (president) must enforce the law to the letter. Instead of spending less/enforcing less, as Obama does with current immigration law.

    Do you think the Congress, whether dominated by D or R's, will pass "enforcement to the letter, along with funding to accomplish all enforcement"?

    Neither do I.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    Violation of economic principles -if they are serious enough- merits long prison sentences. It is the president's job to enforce the law, isn't it? The judge passes sentence, but can't do that unless the perp is arrested first then found guilty, hence my statement.

    Cleveland failed to order arrest (& thus possibly) jail tycoons who started and ran "trusts" or cartels that ran competition as close to a zero-point as they could. Don't know how you feel about this, but that is a direct and serious violation of capitalist economic principles in my book. These tycoons operated across state lines -that is federal jurisdiction and obligates a reaction from the executive and judicial at the federal level.

    If one can get away with monopolies, it is hardly stupid. Evil, perhaps, but not stupid in the short term.

    A more recent example would be socializing losses associated with the mortgage/financial crisis which hit the fan in 2007/8. Hardly stupid to threaten a major crash if the sector is not bailed out. Evil, perhaps, but very smart in the short run. In the long run, this behavior by oligarchs brings down empires, as the great majority of it's citizens lose trust and work to avoid dealing with their leadership and rules (...or better, "what rules"?) of what used to be a fair game.

    Therefore, some violations of economic principles require severe sanctions. The economy does not necessarily correct bad behavior -in a timely manner- in every case.
    And Obama is failing to enforce our immigration laws for political gain. If he is allowed to get away with it, laws mean nothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    Violation of economic principles -if they are serious enough- merits long prison sentences. It is the president's job to enforce the law, isn't it? The judge passes sentence, but can't do that unless the perp is arrested first then found guilty, hence my statement.

    Cleveland failed to order arrest (& thus possibly) jail tycoons who started and ran "trusts" or cartels that ran competition as close to a zero-point as they could. Don't know how you feel about this, but that is a direct and serious violation of capitalist economic principles in my book. These tycoons operated across state lines -that is federal jurisdiction and obligates a reaction from the executive and judicial at the federal level.

    If one can get away with monopolies, it is hardly stupid. Evil, perhaps, but not stupid in the short term.

    A more recent example would be socializing losses associated with the mortgage/financial crisis which hit the fan in 2007/8. Hardly stupid to threaten a major crash if the sector is not bailed out. Evil, perhaps, but very smart in the short run. In the long run, this behavior by oligarchs brings down empires, as the great majority of it's citizens lose trust and work to avoid dealing with their leadership and rules (...or better, "what rules"?) of what used to be a fair game.

    Therefore, some violations of economic principles require severe sanctions. The economy does not necessarily correct bad behavior -in a timely manner- in every case.
    I don't disagree but, now, you're talking about more than just violating economic principles. Economic principles, like "buy low, sell high" are not laws: They are rules for operating within an economy so the only punishment one would receive for breaking an economic principle would be the natural consequence of a really dumb decision.

    You're talking about ruthless monopolies that seek to end competition and that is illegal. So possibly I simply misunderstood what you were saying.

    I agree with this latter statement.

    Leave a comment:


  • radcentr
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    Violation of economic principles -if they are serious enough- merits long prison sentences. It is the president's job to enforce the law, isn't it? The judge passes sentence, but can't do that unless the perp is arrested first then found guilty, hence my statement.

    Cleveland failed to order arrest (& thus possibly) jail tycoons who started and ran "trusts" or cartels that ran competition as close to a zero-point as they could. Don't know how you feel about this, but that is a direct and serious violation of capitalist economic principles in my book. These tycoons operated across state lines -that is federal jurisdiction and obligates a reaction from the executive and judicial at the federal level.

    If one can get away with monopolies, it is hardly stupid. Evil, perhaps, but not stupid in the short term.

    A more recent example would be socializing losses associated with the mortgage/financial crisis which hit the fan in 2007/8. Hardly stupid to threaten a major crash if the sector is not bailed out. Evil, perhaps, but very smart in the short run. In the long run, this behavior by oligarchs brings down empires, as the great majority of it's citizens lose trust and work to avoid dealing with their leadership and rules (...or better, "what rules"?) of what used to be a fair game.

    Therefore, some violations of economic principles require severe sanctions. The economy does not necessarily correct bad behavior -in a timely manner- in every case.

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    ...Now, if you had a libertarian candidate that actually proved he would consistently imprison tycoons for long sentences, when they violate economic principles, we'd have a deal. But Grover Cleveland was not that candidate. Not even close. Come up with a state governor who proves his worth on this issue.
    It's not the president's job to imprison anyone. But, even if it was the president's job, I wouldn't be sitting idly by while all tycoons are imprisoned. I would love to see those tycoons imprisoned who have done illegal acts (whether or not they benefitted financially from them). But carte blanche imprisoning them because they violate "economic principles? No, I don't think that is such a good idea.

    Don't get me wrong, I think they might be criminally STUPID if they violate well-established economic principles... but that isn't illegal.

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    Originally posted by jet57 View Post
    I have always admired George Will and I like his thinking on a lot of issues. You've cheery picked the article however to fit your thinking and it disrupts the character of the anonymous candidate that is featured. I'm too crazy about the deregulation spirit simply because with all of this deregulation craze, the specific regulations are never featured, so I dig in my heels because of that. The attitude of letting the country run itself however is an attractive one as a machine like this has had that capability since we declared independence. The idea of presidential noninterference does put new twist on it.

    If such a candidate ran and was as much pro labor as anti regulation: or a nice balance of both, then I would vote for that person.
    But he DID define which regulations this candidate would de-regulate:
    to reduce the regulatory state’s impediments to industriousness
    So this candidate is not campaigning on removing all regulations: Only those that impede industriousness.

    With that, I have no special need for this candidate to be pro-labor. That's not the president's job, anyway, so if this candidate is committed to reducing the regulatory impediments to indistriousness AND committed to not furthering any major economic regulations, business (and the concomitant labor) will prosper.

    Leave a comment:


  • tsquare
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    If you have to tell people...

    I'm NOT WEAK: Obama hits back at foreign policy critics as he vows...
    Then... you've pretty much lost the issue, don't you think?


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...an-rebels.html

    Leave a comment:


  • jotathought
    replied
    Re: Everything Obama Is Not...

    Originally posted by jet57 View Post
    And this has what exactly to do with the topic? Or is this a decisvely random anti Obama comment.
    Well .. if I read the topic of the thread, it clearly states, "Everything Obama is Not," so I was merely stating characteristics that Obama does not possess. Seems pretty on-topic to me.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X