Muenkel 0 #26 March 10, 2009 Quote 'straight bill' Now Mike...that sounds very homophobic. The new progressive way of phrasing is that 'each project gets its own non-gender specific, with no regard to sexual orientation bill'. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 March 10, 2009 Smartass!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #28 March 10, 2009 Quote Smartass! So true! _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #29 March 10, 2009 How do you know? We haven't ever tried it. We'll never know if we don't try. There's a whole lot of difference between doing and theory. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #30 March 10, 2009 QuoteQuotePoliticians have argued that for years. In reading some of the bills that go to congress and to see all the frivilous cr, attached as 'riders' makes blood shoot from my eyes! Then, we are left with higher taxes to pay for that frivilous crap. That system is based on high paying lobbyists buying votes for their pet project or cause. I'd like to see the president have a line item veto. On second thought, all those politicians wouldn't get their bri... er... 'perks' if he did. Chuck +1 You can add to that one thing... shut down every lobbyist in Washington.. make ANY attempt to influence a politician with perks or campaign contributions a felony offence of trying to bribe a federal employee. Weren't we, in the last few years handed a line of crap from Washington about how senators and congressmen could not take gifts or anything else from lobbyists? Yet, it still goes-on but in a different form? Maybe, I'm dreaming that. The fact of the matter is if, ALL bribes, gifts or what ever was made a felony, I'd be willing to bet, we'd see a lot less frivilous spending. Those politicians have it all figured-out and we're the suckers. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #31 March 10, 2009 QuoteHow do you know? We haven't ever tried it. We'll never know if we don't try. There's a whole lot of difference between doing and theory. Because it creates the possibility of unchecked abuse of power. If that possibility exists, sooner or later an executive will get into office and exploit it. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #32 March 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteHow do you know? We haven't ever tried it. We'll never know if we don't try. There's a whole lot of difference between doing and theory. Because it creates the possibility of unchecked abuse of power. If that possibility exists, sooner or later an executive will get into office and exploit it. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when. You're sure of that? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #33 March 10, 2009 QuoteYou're sure of that? Yes Edit to add: Do you trust all future Presidents to not abuse such power if they had it? As the number of Presidents with line item veto power increases, the probability of abuse of the line item veto approaches 1.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #34 March 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou're sure of that? Yes That's what that book you read told you? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #35 March 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou're sure of that? Yes That's what that book you read told you? Chuck See my edited post above, please.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #36 March 10, 2009 To be honest with you... I don't trust any politician. I think they are mostly, out to get what the position gains them. What makes you think, they aren't abusing the powers they have now? As for the line-item veto? I'd still, like to see the president have it and see how it shakes-out. Like I said, you can't know for sure if you don't try something. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #37 March 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.gallup.com/poll/116224/Obama-Approval-Rating-Increases.aspx QuoteObama Approval Rating Increases to 67% by Jeffrey M. Jones PRINCETON, NJ -- In the days immediately after Barack Obama's nationally televised address to Congress on Tuesday night, his public support has increased significantly to 67% in Feb. 24-26 Gallup Daily polling, and is now just two points below his term high. This comes on the heels of a term-low 59% reported by Gallup on Tuesday. Have you cared to look at how his numbers compare to past presidents? You may be surprised........... Actually, yes, I have: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113923/History-Foretells-Obama-First-Job-Approval-Rating.aspx Gallup poll Presidential approval rates after about 100 days in office: Nixon: 62% Carter: 63% Reagan: 68% Bush-1: 56% Clinton:55% Bush-2: 62% TIME OUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Once again the topic is being changed. This wasn't about approval rating in the 100 days of office. This was about the most increasing disproval rating in the first 30 days in office. Stick to the subject. At this pace, there won't be anything left of Obama's ratings by the time we hit 100 days in office. He'll be just as radio-active as Bush was when departing Washington. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #38 March 10, 2009 QuoteQuotePoliticians have argued that for years. In reading some of the bills that go to congress and to see all the frivilous cr, attached as 'riders' makes blood shoot from my eyes! Then, we are left with higher taxes to pay for that frivilous crap. That system is based on high paying lobbyists buying votes for their pet project or cause. I'd like to see the president have a line item veto. On second thought, all those politicians wouldn't get their bri... er... 'perks' if he did. Chuck +1 You can add to that one thing... shut down every lobbyist in Washington.. make ANY attempt to influence a politician with perks or campaign contributions a felony offence of trying to bribe a federal employee. QuoteOMG the date is 3/10/2009 there is something we agree on Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #39 March 10, 2009 QuoteTo be honest with you... I don't trust any politician. I think they are mostly, out to get what the position gains them. Agreed. In my opinion, anyone who wants to be President should be disqualified from the position. QuoteWhat makes you think, they aren't abusing the powers they have now? I don't think that. I think quite a few politicians do abuse their power to whatever extent they can get away with. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers saw fit to limit the extent of the power of any single person in office. I think they were quite wise in doing so. Line item veto would substantially reduce the limitation of power of the President. The person occupying that particular office is already the most powerful single person in government. That is the last office for which we should be expanding power. QuoteAs for the line-item veto? I'd still, like to see the president have it and see how it shakes-out. Like I said, you can't know for sure if you don't try something. I'm quite certain we would have some Presidents who would have enough respect for the principles of the government that they could use line item veto constructively, without abusing it. I'm equally certain that there would be some that would abuse the expanded power, effectively eliminating the power of the Congress to check and balance the power of the executive. Given his experience as a Constitutional law professor, I would be reluctantly inclined to trust the current President with line item veto. Likewise, former President Carter was principled enough to be trusted with such power. There's no way in hell that I would trust any of the four Presidents that held the office during the intervening period with that power. Not one of them. It only takes one future President to abuse the power of a line item veto to a disastrous end. We need to limit executive powers with the worst case scenario in mind, not the best case, because sooner or later, the worst case scenario will be the reality. Power can be too intoxicating.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #40 March 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteTo be honest with you... I don't trust any politician. I think they are mostly, out to get what the position gains them. Agreed. In my opinion, anyone who wants to be President should be disqualified from the position. QuoteWhat makes you think, they aren't abusing the powers they have now? I don't think that. I think quite a few politicians do abuse their power to whatever extent they can get away with. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers saw fit to limit the extent of the power of any single person in office. I think they were quite wise in doing so. Line item veto would substantially reduce the limitation of power of the President. The person occupying that particular office is already the most powerful single person in government. That is the last office for which we should be expanding power. QuoteAs for the line-item veto? I'd still, like to see the president have it and see how it shakes-out. Like I said, you can't know for sure if you don't try something. I'm quite certain we would have some Presidents who would have enough respect for the principles of the government that they could use line item veto constructively, without abusing it. I'm equally certain that there would be some that would abuse the expanded power, effectively eliminating the power of the Congress to check and balance the power of the executive. Given his experience as a Constitutional law professor, I would be reluctantly inclined to trust the current President with line item veto. Likewise, former President Carter was principled enough to be trusted with such power. There's no way in hell that I would trust any of the four Presidents that held the office during the intervening period with that power. Not one of them. It only takes one future President to abuse the power of a line item veto to a disastrous end. We need to limit executive powers with the worst case scenario in mind, not the best case, because sooner or later, the worst case scenario will be the reality. Power can be too intoxicating. I gather then, you'd rather see 'business as usual' in Washington where congress and senate are tacking-on riders to important bills so they can satisfy lobbyists who want 'frivilous' spending? You don't think for a minute, this practice is just helping to keep the U.S. in debt? You really believe that a president of this country would be allowed to get-away with trying to get too powerful? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 March 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou're sure of that? Yes That's what that book you read told you? 40 years of current history tells us this. With the possible exception of Carter, every President dating back to at least LBJ abuse the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. A line item veto only increases this imbalance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #42 March 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou're sure of that? Yes That's what that book you read told you? 40 years of current history tells us this. With the possible exception of Carter, every President dating back to at least LBJ abuse the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. A line item veto only increases this imbalance. O.K. How then, do we stop the lobbyists from bribing our senators and congressmen to get frivilous spending riders on important bills? Anyone?... Bueller... Bueller... Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
