I see.

I also believe in public discourse: unless, however my veil may be removed, and my true nature is reveiled.

Now, beheadings are a totally different matter.

"Mr President, does KK spit or swallow?"

Fixed it for ya.

And the arbiter of "treason" would be?

And I should put my faith in you, O, enlightened one?,

Mr O were you born or hatched in the United States?

Mr. President: it's been said that everybody's got a price. What was yours?

I seem to share many of Salmo g.'s thoughts on the President's first term. I had no illusions that he would be allowed by Congress and big business to realize much (if any) of the change he promised during his campaign. Somehow, I did have high hopes that he would at least use his executive power to prevent further attacks on the middle class. Obviously, those hopes were unfounded, as he has picked up right were his predecessors left off. As much as I don't care for Romney, I agree that he couldn't be much worse.

While I won't go so far as to publicly advocate public beheadings (GITMO is, lest we forget, still alive and well), I do believe a revolution is the only way the working people in this country will be able to stop oppression at the hands of the .0001. History gives us no reason to believe otherwise. In my mind, what I have heard the President say since his election sounds a lot like "Let them eat cake." Or, was it corn?

His ineptitude authors many of the middle class attacks. His politics
don't allow for a middle class anyway. They are all untermenchen.

Mr. President, why do you think Illy has to lie about his IQ score?

Got a burr under your jock Dan? Oh...maybe you don't need
a jock. Sorry. (I can almost predict the response)

Our current President, Mr Obama had complete control of Congress for two years, and how did he use his time when he had total control of the worlds most powerful country?

I remember Golf, Basketball, and Bowling, with a cheeseburger snuck in here or and there.

Well now, Mr. Bill is on the tube, and I want to be watching, because you never know what he might do next.










Basketball

Ours is a system of checks and balances, by design, so that no single branch can govern autonomously. As much as we like to give presidents credit for progress and shame them for a lack thereof, they ultimately don't accomplish anything significant without buy-in from the Legislative (and occasionally Judicial) branches. We're that not the case, our fair republic would be a dictatorship. I like that system in principle, but in practice, it creates gridlock and convenient excuses for maintaining the status quo.

True, Obama had a party majority in Congress for his first two years. Trouble is, Legislators don't always vote the party line, especially when there are votes to be won and money to be made by voting to the contrary. Getting a 2/3 majority for Legislation that doesn't benefit big business can be a real bitch, no matter the party to whom those accepting the bribes subscribe.

To be clear, I have been disappointed in this administration; I just feel that the President should only be accountable for somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the failures. I grant his predecessor the same measurement and therefore hold him less accountable than most for the crimes against society enacted during his tenure.

As regards golf, basketball, etc.: who gives a damn? At least those activities take away some of the time he might otherwise spend conspiring with the other branches to squeeze more blood from the lowly, withered turnip that once was our middle class. Besides, I think one could argue that by exercising, he is setting a good example for an increasingly sedentary and overweight population. Might be his best contribution to the general welfare during his term.

I stand by my regretful assertion that only the people will be able to right the wrongs, and most likely, if it does happen, it will be by sheer strength in numbers.

There is a concept of executive order, which I agree is being abused more and more these days. Duly noted. However, the President CANNOT enact legislation or interpret the Constitution, so those checks are still in place. If the Judicial Branch allows a President's executive order to stand, it is because they don't believe it represents a breach of Constitutionality. Unfortunately, the gray area is getting dangerously large in those departments....

I hope you don't gather from my remarks that I am any sort of presidential apologist; my point is that to directly accredit changes to the laws that affect our everyday lives to the acting President is perhaps less than accurate analysis. Even if the President's name is Bush. Fair enough?

Hank, that is kinda how it works...pass laws, or executive orders, and if someone doesn't like them they take them to court and the judicial branch will tell them if it's cool or not...the judicial branch can't even look at the issue until it is an actual case and someone has alleged some harm.

Fish on...

Todd

Well, it's more than "apparent this Administration thinks it can make its own immigration law"...it's legal, and proper, and happening.

Got a problem with that?

Fish on...

Todd

No, Hank...it's legal for him to do it...if someone sues and the court decides to look at it, then we'll find out if the policy itself is legal.

Fish on...

Todd