/dev/null Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428793/democrats-and-totalitarianism-2016 Forward!!!
boyst Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 that's a big word, are you sure birddog and gator will be able to understand the title?
....lybob Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 https://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/republican-wants-to-strip-striking-college-athletes-of-scholarships-after-mizzou-football-protest-over-racism/
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Between now and November 2016, Americans might want to think a bit about whether they wish to invest an openly totalitarian political party with the power of the presidency. I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "Yes, they do." https://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/republican-wants-to-strip-striking-college-athletes-of-scholarships-after-mizzou-football-protest-over-racism/ As well they should be. They got scholarships to play football, then refused to play football.
TPS Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428793/democrats-and-totalitarianism-2016 Forward!!! You can't have totalitarianism without that first part, "total". Subservience to the government, that includes republicans....
....lybob Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "Yes, they do." As well they should be. They got scholarships to play football, then refused to play football. So does the State pay for the scholarships? if not what business is it of theirs?
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 So does the State pay for the scholarships? if not what business is it of theirs? No, the University of Missouri is a private college. Dumbass.
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 You can't have totalitarianism without that first part, "total". Subservience to the government, that includes republicans.... Or you just outlaw the Republican Party. Which is what the original link alludes to (if you have senators seriously suggesting that Exxon should be RICO'd over global warming, there's no particular reason the RNC can't be as well.) And every president seems to take further steps towards marginalizing the opposition party. We're three or four administrations away from a presidency that can dispense with that pesky rule of law and do what he wants with "a pen and a phone." Like I said above...it's what the American people want.
....lybob Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 No, the University of Missouri is a private college. Dumbass. The university doesn’t receive state funds to operate athletic programs, according to the University of Missouri’s student-athlete handbook . “[T]hus, similar to private business, the Mizzou Athletics Department must operate solely from what revenue it generates,” the handbook states.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "Yes, they do." As well they should be. They got scholarships to play football, then refused to play football. The real question is, will they get to keep their Obama phones if they willingly give up freedoms
TPS Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Or you just outlaw the Republican Party. Which is what the original link alludes to (if you have senators seriously suggesting that Exxon should be RICO'd over global warming, there's no particular reason the RNC can't be as well.) And every president seems to take further steps towards marginalizing the opposition party. We're three or four administrations away from a presidency that can dispense with that pesky rule of law and do what he wants with "a pen and a phone." Like I said above...it's what the American people want. Yeah, that last part. People have short memories. Bush-Cheney did their fair share of presidential orders.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Yeah, that last part. People have short memories. Bush-Cheney did their fair share of presidential orders. And therein lies the problem with executive order and judicial fiat. When it's YOUR guy doing it, bully for you. When it's not, look out.
TPS Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 And therein lies the problem with executive order and judicial fiat. When it's YOUR guy doing it, bully for you. When it's not, look out. I agree completely. I lump the two parties together. A puppet master had two hands...
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 that's a big word, are you sure birddog and gator will be able to understand the title? Who the hell are you? Is this Greggy's new log in?
....lybob Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/ Edited December 21, 2015 by ....lybob
/dev/null Posted December 21, 2015 Author Posted December 21, 2015 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/ What percentage of Exective Orders per Administration enacted policies and or regulations that were not able to make it thru Congress as a law? Executive Orders should have a sunset. 90 days, 180 days, or something, where it has to be brought up before Congress.
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 What percentage of Exective Orders per Administration enacted policies and or regulations that were not able to make it thru Congress as a law? Executive Orders should have a sunset. 90 days, 180 days, or something, where it has to be brought up before Congress. He also clearly didn't read the caveat at the end.
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 It's not the number of orders, it's what they're being used for. No one cares if an executive order is issued to give a name to a national park or forest preserve. They do care when they are used to circumvent the legislative branch in order to enact major policy. The later is what is happening now.
....lybob Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 It's not the number of orders, it's what they're being used for. No one cares if an executive order is issued to give a name to a national park or forest preserve. They do care when they are used to circumvent the legislative branch in order to enact major policy. The later is what is happening now. Prove it's happening more now than in the past
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Prove it's happening more now than in the past From your own link: "If it’s unprecedented, it’s because of the scope of the executive action, not the executive action itself."
Recommended Posts