- Status
In West Virginia, that means everything is run by Massey Energy.
At least it did before SCOTUS told CEO Don Blankenship he couldn't buy himself judges anymore. He still has Gov. Manchin firmly in pocket, though.
I see. I guess what I was getting at, was that as the very head of the government, they both command more respect than anything below them. Or at least, in theory. I don't care that much about the monarchy, other than as a curiosity, and the Queen is my head of state. But to disrespect the head of the structure, would be to insult everything below it, as well. As far as I'm concerned, at least.
Although, I would waive my opinion in a case that the president isn't acting presidential, or if the queen wasn't acting ... queen-y? Rectification of names, and all that.
GasBandit
Staff member
This is not so. It is the very heart of the matter of why we came to have an elected president instead of one of the other forms of executive authority much more common in western civilzation in the 18th century. The office of the presidency is not to rule but merely to serve to govern. Its power is checked and ultimately fleeting. Everything about the way the government was set up was to try to prevent those elected to positions from getting "above" the governed. We just threw off the yoke of one so "high," we decided we didn't need another one. Living memory has sort of gotten away from that, unfortunately, and a number of people have started wearing their titles of office like they were titles of nobility anyway.
The whole point was that they were not supposed to be "above" anyone, thus impeding the resurgence of tyranny. Got an overabundance of that in recent times as well, particularly at the federal level. It's like everybody inside the DC beltway has agreed to pretend the 10th amendment doesn't exist.
I see your point, but even with the checks and balances, and even if he doesn't wield 'too much' power, isn't it the office of the president that the rest of the government is based around? Not the man, mind you, but the office.
I mean, it is still the president's signature that makes a bill law, am I right? Even if he doesn't wield power that elevates him so high above everything else, I would still see that as an elevated position.
Or maybe not elevated but ... integral? At the center of things, maybe? I'm having trouble pulling words out of my vocabulary these days.
Although, I guess I understand a little bit better why it's less horrible to insult the president than the queen, but I'm having trouble divorcing the idea of an insult on the executive branch from the idea of an insult on the whole system.
I mean, it is still the president's signature that makes a bill law, am I right? Even if he doesn't wield power that elevates him so high above everything else, I would still see that as an elevated position.
Or maybe not elevated but ... integral? At the center of things, maybe? I'm having trouble pulling words out of my vocabulary these days.
Although, I guess I understand a little bit better why it's less horrible to insult the president than the queen, but I'm having trouble divorcing the idea of an insult on the executive branch from the idea of an insult on the whole system.
GasBandit
Staff member
I think I've found the reason you're having a hard time with it - you think it's bad to insult the whole system. The proper viewpoint for americans to have of their government is to hold elected officials in about the same esteem as they would their local garbageman, only trust him even less for the influence he wields.
It's not the president's power that enables him to sign a bill into law, it's the american people's desire to limit the power of congress such that somebody else, designated the president, MUST sign off on their idiocy before it becomes law, or they can go pound sand.
"I have accepted a seat in the House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and to the ruin of our children. I give you this warning that you may prepare your mind for your fate." - John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.
Agreed. I'd be awful disappointed if one of my senators had been that rude. Good on him to at least call.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not as much difference as there was supposed to be.
My mistake. I'd be disappointed in them too.
My mistake. I'd be disappointed in them too.[/QUOTE]
Him not them. You can only have one representative.
I
Iaculus
My mistake. I'd be disappointed in them too.[/QUOTE]
Him not them. You can only have one representative.[/QUOTE]
And why is that a reason not to be disappointed in all of them?
Where'd your libertarian spirit go, man?
Ooh, that clears things up then.
But to be clear: I have problems with insulting the system, yes. But the people sitting in the offices are fair game if and when they do a piss-poor job. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that this joker must have seen this speech as Obama doing a piss-poor job.
My mistake. I'd be disappointed in them too.[/quote]
Him not them. You can only have one representative.[/QUOTE]
Damn, you are nitpicky today!
My mistake. I'd be disappointed in them too.[/quote]
Him not them. You can only have one representative.[/QUOTE]
Damn, you are nitpicky today![/QUOTE]
Yea, sorry about that. My work today involved sitting around waiting on things to happen and people to do stuff. Hopefully I'll be busy tomorrow.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPaiylUYW0[/ame]
and the keyboard cat version
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG31ZRLHywY[/ame]
*thats* how we do things here
and the keyboard cat version
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG31ZRLHywY[/ame]
*thats* how we do things here
And that's how it should be done.*thats* how we do things here
Seriously. To sit in the gallery is quite entertaining. On the occasional lazy afternoon I've been known to turn on CPAC (feed from House of Assembly) for entertainment.
---------- Post added at 12:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------
Another fun story, copied and pasted from Wikipedia. Peter MacKay is our Minister of National Defense, and Belinda Stronach was another MP. They were dating, but at some point they broke things off, and eventually Stronach crossed the floor to become a Liberal MP.
North_Ranger
Staff member
Meme away, folks.
Mr. Wilson should at least use fact checks since he doesn't have time to read the bills.
My favorite part is this:
My favorite part is this:
GasBandit
Staff member
If we're "reforming" health care, we should be getting rid of that as well.
But that we're already often paying for health care for indigent illegal immigrants doesn't change the fact that Obama was speaking untruthfully when he asserted that illegal immigrants would not be able to take advantage of Obamacare.
Not to nitpick, but isn't it true that illegal immigrants would not be able to legally take advantage of Obamacare? Yes, they backed out the provisions introduced to enforce that, but the verbage is still there making it illegal.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not to nitpick, but isn't it true that illegal immigrants would not be able to legally take advantage of Obamacare? Yes, they backed out the provisions introduced to enforce that, but the verbage is still there making it illegal.[/QUOTE]
They didn't back it out, they directly blocked it. Twice. Which makes everything else meaningless. An unenforceable law is not a law.
Jesus, you fucking libs..... Double standard much?
fade
Staff member
THAT right there is the problem. Angry chest beating full of nasty language instead of some civilized talk. I mean nothing makes me want to hammer out a solution like being called a name. It's the same thing that made the very idea of a town hall, even one populated by the presence of your most ideal Republican-approved educated, land-owning citizen a failing proposition. People devolve into pointless, heated argument and personal insults.
I mean, on that note, I find it amusing that you, GasBandit, constantly point to the founding fathers like they're gods, and yet claim that all government figures are somehow equal. I seriously cannot believe that a group of people who wrote the things that they did would show anything but the most deferent respect for the office of president. The very name of the office implies presiding over. These are the last people who would stand up and shout "you lie" at the president. These are also the last people (outside of a few witty quips) who would think of themselves as being equivalent to the garbageman, too.
I mean, on that note, I find it amusing that you, GasBandit, constantly point to the founding fathers like they're gods, and yet claim that all government figures are somehow equal. I seriously cannot believe that a group of people who wrote the things that they did would show anything but the most deferent respect for the office of president. The very name of the office implies presiding over. These are the last people who would stand up and shout "you lie" at the president. These are also the last people (outside of a few witty quips) who would think of themselves as being equivalent to the garbageman, too.
Ahh, the level of political discourse on the right.
And for Shannow's gif... too bad Biden did not facepalm.
Not to nitpick, but isn't it true that illegal immigrants would not be able to legally take advantage of Obamacare? Yes, they backed out the provisions introduced to enforce that, but the verbage is still there making it illegal.[/quote]
They didn't back it out, they directly blocked it. Twice. Which makes everything else meaningless. An unenforceable law is not a law.[/quote]
I guess this is what I don't understand then. There's a law somewhere that says I can't shoot people. I'm not sure that the law in question says how they're going to stop me - just the potential punishment for violating the law. Is this not an actual law then?
EDIT: Or did they remove the potential punishment for violation? I could see that rendering it impotent.
Why does there need to be enforcement clause in this bill?
We need to enforce immigration at the border and the workplace. It should not be the job of a doctor, or nurse to enforce the law. ICE is supposed to take care of this issue.
We need to enforce immigration at the border and the workplace. It should not be the job of a doctor, or nurse to enforce the law. ICE is supposed to take care of this issue.
GasBandit
Staff member
I said all government positions are suspect, I didn't say all people who occupy said positions are equal. The difference here is I say men are great by virtue of their accomplishments that live on after them, whereas others now are saying men are great by virtue of their current job title.
Ahh, the level of political discourse on the right.
[/quote]
Yeah, the left is totally above all that, they never ever say things like "fucking repugnicans" or engage in any kind of vulgar ad hominem. Especially not for the last 8 years straight. And they certainly never started any websites where that's pretty much all that would occur.
Not to nitpick, but isn't it true that illegal immigrants would not be able to legally take advantage of Obamacare? Yes, they backed out the provisions introduced to enforce that, but the verbage is still there making it illegal.[/quote]
They didn't back it out, they directly blocked it. Twice. Which makes everything else meaningless. An unenforceable law is not a law.[/quote]
I guess this is what I don't understand then. There's a law somewhere that says I can't shoot people. I'm not sure that the law in question says how they're going to stop me - just the potential punishment for violating the law. Is this not an actual law then?
EDIT: Or did they remove the potential punishment for violation? I could see that rendering it impotent.[/quote]
There's no punishment implied. It just says "Illegal immigrants need not apply" but supplies no actual method, or even requirement, for checking the legal status of the applicant... much less designate punishment.
Yes, we need to enforce it there, too. But the same people blocking enforcement in that place are the same ones blocking enforcement here as well.
But that's what I was getting at. Isn't it enough to say it's illegal. Do we need to actually say "It's illegal and we expect that to be enforced"?
I know that most of law is bullshit (raised by a lawyer), but this seems really silly to me.
But that's what I was getting at. Isn't it enough to say it's illegal. Do we need to actually say "It's illegal and we expect that to be enforced"?
I know that most of law is bullshit (raised by a lawyer), but this seems really silly to me.[/QUOTE]
But it gets back to what I am saying, enforce immigration law. Don't force doctors and teachers to suspect every person with a foreign accent of being a danged illegal. If an illegal will pay his share of the insurance, wtf should any of us care?
GasBandit
Staff member
But that's what I was getting at. Isn't it enough to say it's illegal. Do we need to actually say "It's illegal and we expect that to be enforced"?
I know that most of law is bullshit (raised by a lawyer), but this seems really silly to me.[/quote]
Things that are "unenforceable" are frequently overturned.
The very nature of "insurance" is you don't have a share. For insurance to work, you have to have more people paying more money in premiums than you have people spending money in claims. By the very nature of the beast, it isn't an equal-in equal-out system. Since illegals most often don't pay into the system (they're frequently paid under the table in cash, so you can't even get to them through a "public option" or single payer plan), you can't calculate them as part of the pay-in equation. But as soon as they get sick, they'll definitely be showing up in the emergency rooms as they already are.
If we were to accept that Obamacare were an otherwise workable program even except for this (which it isn't), all it would take would be to require social security/green card/whatever proof of legal status when you're filling out all the other paperwork already involved in getting treated... but as we've seen, such measures have been shot down already.
Folks, you have to remember - this isn't actually about improving the health care system. It's not about making people healthier, lowering costs, anything like that. Many suggestions about how to improve the existing system (such as letting insurance companies sell across state lines, tort reform, medical savings plans, etc) are all being completely ignored because they don't serve the REAL agenda here - a foot in the door for single payer, which then increases federal bureaucracy and makes ever more people dependent on government. It's about control and power. Not health.
Everything in Obama's speech to the legislature was pretty much a lie. It's just that Joe chose a gauche time to point it out.
- Status