muff528

None of your posts really answered any of my questions. They only referred to what boneheads Boehner and the Repubs are for not compromising with the President. Both sides have philosophical "hard decks" for what they are willing to give up. There won't be an agreement until both sides move towards each other. The discussions between Boehner and Obama established where these differences were. Neither side is compelled to capitulate. Concessions from Obama and the Dems would do as much towards a reaching a resolution as would concessions from the Repubs. The usual procedure is to pork up the place until enough votes are bought from enough legislators (who are willing to abandon their hard decks for the ground rush of goodies) and get a bill passed ...for better or worse.

I wonder if this might have been an example (from Wiki): "His inauguration on March 4, 1933, occurred in the middle of a bank panic. .....The very next day he declared a "bank holiday" and called for a special session of Congress to start March 9, at which Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act." Also, maybe his call for Congress to declare war on Japan is another example. ???

I don't believe the President forced this issue. I only questioned your post #5 statement, re: whether the President could issue an EO to hold Congress in a room...

Sort of; although the specifics are subject to some interpretation. Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution says: [the President] 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.... I haven't looked up whether there are any factual scenario-specific cases interpreting this. I saw the key phrase here being "on extraordinary Occasions". There is nothing "extraordinary" here. Only taxation and spending policies. Parties and Houses and Presidents have always disagreed here. I also wonder if this has ever applied. Also: "...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". This looks like if the Pres. convenes both Houses, and they disagree on a time, then he will appoint the time they will convene ...but only for an "extraordinary Occasion". So, yes, I suppose he can "force" Congress to convene (not necessarily pass some piece of legislation as directed by him or his policies) in some unspecified special circumstance. But, by "agree with his policies" I meant the President can't force the Congress to present him with a bill that he, himself, might have written. IOW- they are not bound to present a bill that caters to his wishes. (not sure if my meaning here is clear.)

don't know, and wasn't my point. I would be bad leadership to demand such a thing and then leave. I've worked for managers who have done that, and I've worked for the kind that stick around (even if they can't help). I know which kind I felt was a better leader. I really wasn't responding specifically to your post. ..only commenting on quades comment re: executive order to force Congress to stay. Congress doesn't answer to the President. An argument can be made, though, that he answers to them.

- dislocated shoulder - a massive rotator cuff tear Yeap, Internet superhero much? Wow! Good thing that kid took evasive action or that guy could have really been messed up.

I expect the youtube vid to be posted soon.

I'm not sure what part is wrong. The President cannot force Congress to submit bills and I doubt he has the power to issue an EO levying taxes. Which of these is wrong? And who, in this case, is a threat to the US requiring detention by the POTUS? (opinions here might vary).

I guess it depends on how you define a threat to the US, but I think a case could be made. I know for certain the Speaker of the House can compel members to stay. Where was Boehner today? "..threat to the US". In that context why couldn't he simply bypass Congress altogether and issue an EO mandating the tax rates and promises of future spending cuts as he sees fit? ...assuming a threat to the US, and all. Besides, it looks as if they have reached an agreement with regard to taxes. The problem seems now to be with the spending cuts. Obviously, one side is not compromising. I'd like to see the details. Suggest you read the Constitution to see who can do what, who must do what, and who cannot do what. Read it. So, in response to quade's post #5 -- ("...If he was really serious, he . . . Would have signed an Executive Order to hold Congress in a room until they came up with a solution.") the answer is "no", he cannot do that. He might (questionable, IMO) have the power to bypass Congress and issue an executive order to implement any tax and spending changes but he can't force Congress, by executive order, to do it ...or to submit any bill, for that matter. BTW, I thought the Clinton tax rates were the salvation of the country, and no one is really going to cut any spending anyway, so what's all the hubbub?

I guess it depends on how you define a threat to the US, but I think a case could be made. I know for certain the Speaker of the House can compel members to stay. Where was Boehner today? "..threat to the US". In that context why couldn't he simply bypass Congress altogether and issue an EO mandating the tax rates and promises of future spending cuts as he sees fit? ...assuming a threat to the US, and all. Besides, it looks as if they have reached an agreement with regard to taxes. The problem seems now to be with the spending cuts. Obviously, one side is not compromising. I'd like to see the details.

Would have signed an Executive Order to hold Congress in a room until they came up with a solution. The President, can go anywhere he damn well pleases for Christmas because all HE does is sign the final document. true, but if he'd forced them to stay and work while he went on vacation, what kind of leadership is that? The kind we've come to expect from a president, and that's wrong. Does the President have the Constitutional power to issue an executive order forcing a co-equal branch of the government to remain locked in a room until they agree with his policies? Your argument almost made sense until the last three words. No. He wouldn't be asking for that. He'd be asking for for what the entire country ought to be vocally demanding right this very moment; to negotiate. Simply saying "no" to every proposal, including their own, isn't negotiating. It's ridiculous. I'm not making an argument ...I'm asking a question. Can the President hold Congress hostage until they produce a bill he is willing to sign?

Would have signed an Executive Order to hold Congress in a room until they came up with a solution. The President, can go anywhere he damn well pleases for Christmas because all HE does is sign the final document. true, but if he'd forced them to stay and work while he went on vacation, what kind of leadership is that? The kind we've come to expect from a president, and that's wrong. Does the President have the Constitutional power to issue an executive order forcing a co-equal branch of the government to remain locked in a room until they agree with his policies?

Except I never assumed anyone is a "dickhead", and certainly didn't call them that. All I said is that it's not unreasonable for this to go to arbitration, which seemed to be the plan (a hearing before a magistrate, not a jury trial) before the settlement was reached. One side says the older guy picked up the kid, shook him and cursed at him. The other side says the older guy was taken away by ambulance and had to have surgery on his shoulder. I would assume there would be a record of the ambulance bill, and medical records of the repairs done in the surgery, so it might be possible to reach a reasonable idea of whose story is more credible. Perhaps that has something to do with why a settlement was reached? In re-reading the first post I see the settlement was reached by the insurance company representing the kid's family, so they did have insurance. Good on them. So they are complaining about the time they had to spend on depositions, and lost work time. And the "moral outrage" they feel that little Johnny has to pay attention to people and not run over them. Don I retract the "dickhead" comment for now. Happy New Year to all!

Were you there and witnessed the accident? Perhaps you should contact the court so you can be called to testify? Or perhaps, have you been sucked in by uncritically swallowing hook line and sinker the one-sided self-serving propaganda dished out by this family? I don't know what happened, but the uphill skier has a duty to see and avoid the downhill person. If the skier coming from above runs into the lower skier because that person stopped or turned, they were aiming too close to them and skiing beyond their ability to control their trajectory and avoid the collision. As for the alleged altercation, no witnesses have been produced so it's one person's word against the other. On what basis do you assume the guy who was run into is a "dickhead"? Don By the first sentence of the original post. Also, I don't know what happened and you, admittedly, don't know what happened. Maybe you have "been sucked in by uncritically swallowing hook line and sinker the one-sided self-serving propaganda dished out" by the plaintiff. He got his settlement with no one except the two who were involved really knowing what happened. You're right ...it's one person's word against the other. One scared 7-year-old kid who likely wasn't able to defend himself in an interrogation and one adult who might have seen an opportunity to gain an advantage. Why did he settle?

So, why isn't this kid's family suing the pants off of this dickhead for causing the accident and then terrorizing and threatening their child?

It's difficult to prove no life after death, just as its impossible to prove that there is life after death. Would make an interesting court case. There is the thought that if there is no evidence to support a claim then there is no reason to believe it. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. Correct. So I would think that would mean that no need to even try to prove that there is no life after death. That would make it a purely one sided court case. Those making the claim would need to provide sufficient evidence supporting their claim. I think it might be the opposite in the US. If our standard is "innocent until proven guilty", it might be argued that the State would have to prove there is no life after death to get a conviction if the charge of fraud is based solely on the State's position that life after death is a fairytale. That might involve some interesting testimony ...not from clerics, etc., but from physicists. For example, what is the true physical meaning of "before" and "after"? Does "time", as we perceive it's direction, really exist outside of our living consciousness? What is the nature of consciousness? Does it exist only in a living brain only as long as synapses are firing? What connection, if any, does consciousness have to the physical universe? Hard to prove one way or the other. I suppose that's why they call it "faith". Also, it's my understanding that if "something" is not prevented from existing or happening by the (known) laws of physics, then it is possible that it does exist. So, to paraphrase your statement: if there is no evidence to support a claim that something does not exist or happen, then there is no reason to believe it doesn't (or cannot) exist or happen. It might be that believing in no life after death requires a little "faith", too. Not enough evidence to convict someone of fraud or extortion ...unless it could be proven that the flock is being fleeced. IOW, any donations are being diverted from their promised or intended use to personal use by church "officials". IMO, there is no problem with folks willingly giving to their chosen churches with the understanding that their gifts are going where they intend, whatever that might be ...whether or not their belief is based in reality. (1st Amendment). Of course, all bets are off in Belgium.

Then you can join the band! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjHrmmFIErY I think this video belongs over in the onomonopotomus thread.

Good! That'll give you plenty of time to perfect the duck walk, too! After that you can learn another song ...I'll suggest "Wipe Out" or maybe "Chiquitita".

Don't get a cheapo. You'll lose interest fast. There are a lot of inexpensive, quality guitars. A Chinese Yamaha, for example, makes a decent starter. There are a lot of others of similar quality and price. Have someone set the action light. Find someone to play with ...or a group that meets regularly. Try not to pick up bad habits. Have fun! Don't learn "House of the Rising Sun" or "Free Bird" ...or "Stairway to Heaven".

That was like the old Batman movie.

SQUAWK ! (you know....that screeching sound a chicken makes when you wring its neck....).

SQUEAK!

You're probably gonna be doing a lot of that on the 1st.

I usually go behind the big tree out by the back fence.

FWIW, those were both written by Ted Sorenson. I'll take your word for it. I've edited my comment to reflect that information.