Does anyone else see the elctions pointless? When you break down the powers in the govt this "leader" has very little power. Honestly all he has is veto and the military, which he has to have Congressional approval for. People should stop asking this person for all the answers and start talking to the real decision makers, Congress. They make the laws, approve the laws, sen them upstairs, whoops veto, send it back down, and get 3/4 and its still passed. Suck to be Pres. But thats just me. Idk what I'm going to do when I'm 18.
It only gets worse from there. Wait until you discover on top of that the sheer number of people who vote and don't know @!#$ about the canidates, their policys, .... anything.
Just a real quick example. Unfortunatly these people are voting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCcHzUmVP5c
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
SHHh, its easier to put the blame on one man.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:SHHh, its easier to put the blame on one man.
Chris
Very true. Every time somone goes on about Bush I mention that the democrats have the majority and then tell them to name a single bill Bush has vetoed. They can't name even one.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
Ya exactly. I propose as test like the olden days if you can't answer some rudamentary questions then no vote for you. Universal suffrage is worthless.
Congress gave him the right to bypass them on Afghanistan and Iraq I believe so people need to go point the finger there.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:SHHh, its easier to put the blame on one man.
Chris
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SHHHSHSSHHSHHSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh
Don't want "them" to blame themselves! Scape goats are the way to go....
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Wade Jarvis wrote:Taetsch Z-24 wrote:SHHh, its easier to put the blame on one man.
Chris
Very true. Every time somone goes on about Bush I mention that the democrats have the majority and then tell them to name a single bill Bush has vetoed. They can't name even one.
Child healthcare act that took care of ppl that couldn't afford the insurance for their children.
And technically, the speaker of the house is the most powerful person in govt. just nobody knows it. And which is why Newt Gingrich never ran for president - he knew it'd be a demotion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Sold my beloved J in April 2010 -
Wade Jarvis wrote:Taetsch Z-24 wrote:SHHh, its easier to put the blame on one man.
Chris
Very true. Every time somone goes on about Bush I mention that the democrats have the majority and then tell them to name a single bill Bush has vetoed. They can't name even one.
How about the bill prohibiting the CIA from using waterboarding and other techniques on terrorist suspects? Then there's the stem cell one if I remember correctly.
As for the whole 2/3 overruling thing, from my understanding it doesn't happen often. It's fairly difficult to get two thirds of both houses to agree and overrule the president. So the president has some power there, plus there's his budget and many other things. Fact is, the president still shapes a lot of what happens in congress through his policies as well. Honestly though, if the president had a lot more power we'd have a lot more issues. That's why the congress exists. Checks and balances. Unfortunately they rarely check each other and suffer from immense greed, but in theory...
The president is alot more powerful than you think. Executive orders, signing statements,
Supreme Court appointments, and lets not forget the mountain of unconstitutional powers that the President Bush has received. As For the President's intended powers, think of him as a filter of bills. And of course it isn't that hard for the President to have bill introduced in his name by most any member of Congress or the Senate.
I couldn't agree less with the OP. I think this election is probably the most important in a long while. Alot is at stake now.
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
I can't wait for it to be over. All those stupid @!#$ pointless political ads. Obama is this or Mccain is that, Obama isn't this or McCain isn't that. I have noticed Obama is outspending McCain on ads since locally for every McCain ad there's about 4 Obama ads on TV or radio. Obama obviously has the election in the bag, he gets more media attention and face time on talkshows. It seems that he could piss & @!#$(not that I'm saying he would) on the american flag and people would still back him. For christ sakes he supported his pastor when he was outed for saying America deserved 9/11 and God Damn America and people defended Obama for not dropping him like a rock. Lord knows if it was McCain people would be ripping him a new @!#$.
Spike J wrote:I can't wait for it to be over. All those stupid @!#$ pointless political ads. Obama is this or Mccain is that, Obama isn't this or McCain isn't that. I have noticed Obama is outspending McCain on ads since locally for every McCain ad there's about 4 Obama ads on TV or radio. Obama obviously has the election in the bag, he gets more media attention and face time on talkshows. It seems that he could piss & @!#$(not that I'm saying he would) on the american flag and people would still back him. For christ sakes he supported his pastor when he was outed for saying America deserved 9/11 and God Damn America and people defended Obama for not dropping him like a rock. Lord knows if it was McCain people would be ripping him a new @!#$.
You know I go to a church where they won't condemn abortion clinic bombers... Does that make me a supporter of terrorism?! NO. I just go there to worship. And massive differences in what we believe aside, I like the people who I attend with.
Get the @!#$ over that @!#$ already.
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
^^Crap. I totally effed up that quote.
I think the key word there is appointments which still have to be approved by Congress. And anyone can get a bill intrpduced the president just has an easier route to it because he's the president. I could go talk to my local senator get some sigs and get a bill introduced.
I dont think the ads need to go away all together. Just the negatives one. Idc care if Obama did this McCain did that. What can you do for us? Besides try to ruin your opponents reputation.
I believe that those unconstitutional powers were approved by the Congress. He didn't just decide one day that he can go against the Constitution.
Thats what I was saying.
downlinx wrote:dont worry if you cant vote it doesnt count anyway, it all decided by the lobby any way, its a government cover up.
first part is true and funny thing is that the people's vote is actually one electorial vote per state out of what the state gets. so in theory majority could go one way and actual votes go another.
^^Exactly. Its a backward system. Theres no requirement for who the Electoral College picks. Hell they could pick Nader and no one could say a damn thing about it. They don't have to side with the peoples majority.
downlinx wrote:dont worry if you cant vote it doesnt count anyway, it all decided by the lobby any way, its a government cover up.
Well if you don't like the lobby, you might want to get off your ass, get out and vote for the candidate who refused their money and influence - and still raises tons of cash mostly from many, many small donors. Against all odds he has risen past their attempts to stop him(and their subsequent backing of all his opponents). I'll let you guess which one...
Hint: He is the one that has been ahead in polls for a while now.
As for the electoral college - that needs to be done away with entirely. It is a system of maintaining control over the ignorant masses in case they happen to elect an idiot - and clearly the system has failed even its intended purpose(aka the last 8 years). There really is no reason to keep such a system.
blacknred99 wrote:I believe that those unconstitutional powers were approved by the Congress. He didn't just decide one day that he can go against the Constitution.
Thats what I was saying.
Congress may have given them to him, but none-the-less he has them now for sure. So that does increase his authority. To take them away, they must now override his veto. Now some of the powers he has de-facto claimed where not directly given to him(example warrantless wiretapping with no oversight) and are in fact a circumvention of real existing law(FISA for example) - but if he does something and no one stops him, in effect he does have that power...
But it really is important to consider that The President's symbolic leadership does carry real weight - some of those unconstitutional powers he has, how did he get them? "From legislature" is correct. however just who convinced them to do that? Who convinced us to go to war with Iraq? He (mis)lead and they followed aka legislated him powers he should not have. Its not hard to lead the blind...
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
Quiklilcav wrote:Bastardking3000 wrote:...and vote for the candidate who refused their money and influence - and still raises tons of cash mostly from many, many small donors. Against all odds he has risen past their attempts to stop him(and their subsequent backing of all his opponents). I'll let you guess which one...
Hint: He is the one that has been ahead in polls for a while now...
You need to check your facts. He has taken plenty of money from businesses and lobbyists. And when he ends up in the Whitehouse, everyone will have a rude awakening when he starts doing things in their favor. I don't have time to do it right now, as I've got a meeting to go to, but I'll find it.
He is one of the most eloquent and articulate speakers, and people have been mezmerized by this, and many refusing to even look at his past record. Many people on here, as a matter of fact, have refused to look into it under the premises of the information all being controlled by the right wing. Too many people have fallen to the charm and charisma, and not looked at things objectively. He has spent more money on negative advertising that the McCain campaign has spent total, yet everyone believes that McCain is the one being the most negative. Again, people just like him, so they believe him. Very little objective decision making going on in this country.
I need to check my facts? Care to back up any of that?
I'm definitely not someone who has not looked up the facts on him. I've been following him longer than most in fact. Ditto on McCain.
As for the adds, he has just spent more money - period. He has just been raising a hell of alot more of it. That can happen when you have average people actually excited about your candidacy. The thing about the negative adds of his - he resisted for a long time as he was getting smeared and killed in the polls, so yes he fought back. The difference between the adds(granted I haven't heard them all by a long shot) - McCain's adds are chopped full of 95% bull@!#$ minimum. So many things are debunked but he keeps on declaring them as fact. A lie repeated enough times becomes fact.
Its sad, because this is not the McCain I used to admire for years.
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
Bastardking3000 wrote: You know I go to a church where they won't condemn abortion clinic bombers... Does that make me a supporter of terrorism?! NO.
Yes it does
Get your head out of your ass. I didn't say Obama condoned what his nutjob pastor said just that he supported him after it was aired all over the media.
Not to go offtopic but wouldn't your church be hypocritical for not condeming the bombers. The abortion clinic bombers kill people to keep people from getting abortions. Sort of a catch 22 there.
Bastardking3000 wrote:The thing about the negative adds of his - he resisted for a long time as he was getting smeared and killed in the polls, so yes he fought back. The difference between the adds(granted I haven't heard them all by a long shot) - McCain's adds are chopped full of 95% bull@!#$ minimum. So many things are debunked but he keeps on declaring them as fact. A lie repeated enough times becomes fact.
LOL
Sure he resisted. Give me a break. Hes been doing negative ads since he won some of the early democrat primaries and Clinton came out to be the major competition. ABCnews has shown that Obama is spewing about as much garbage as McCain so he's no better in that retrospect either. Your a moron if you think he's not taking money from lobbyists and businesses. He wouldn't be a politician if he didn't
.
Just so it's known I'm neither right wing or left wing and since John Edwards dropped out I haven't bothered to register to vote.
...and yet I still await proof of this.
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
It blows both ways Mr. Wade Jarvis
How about the line item vetoes Mr. Bush put in? Line by line item. Keep that, lose this!
The president is a powerful person, when he speaks people listen and they change their minds, the minds that call representatives and congress people and vote in the senate and house.
Congress may be making decisions but everything goes by the president and Bush has failed miserably. Threatening to veto bills before they even leave the senate; before he's even read them.
By just electing the right person our economy will fall further or start recovering. For the true evil PUN it will give being in the red a whole new meaning.
McCain may not be bush but he has sided with him 90% of the time.
-Chris
Quiklilcav wrote:Bastardking3000 wrote:...and yet I still await proof of this.
Here you go. These are just a few:
Goldman Sachs $743,371
Citigroup Inc $499,598
Google Inc $493,705
JPMorgan Chase & Co $478,462
Microsoft Corp $434,156
Lehman Brothers $391,624
Morgan Stanley $344,130
Now ask yourself this: do you really believe that he is going to "stand up" to these people and raise their taxes after they've been contributing to his campaign for so long? He is going to have plenty of favors owed. He is going to do things differently than he says he is. He is going to do things the way he always has. That would be the 94 times he has voted to raise taxes on what he calls the middle class.
I'm sure the response to this will be something to the effect of the data is manipulated by republicans, or that John McCain has taken similar contributions, etc. etc., but the bottom line is people believe that Obama is change, and he is not. He is 100% liberal politician, and he will act like one when he is in office. He is absolutely more of the same that he claims he is against.
No I'm in particular looking for a credible source as to where that information came from and therefore to verify its accuracy. Also important is when that money came in, was it before or after he pledged to refuse their money and limit their power or after?
Quote:
That would be the 94 times he has voted to raise taxes on what he calls the middle class.
I'm especially calling
on this - I'd like to see that backed up.
Also, adding up those sums(assuming they are accurate) - they total a mere $3,385,046. That sounds like alot until you realize just how much he has raised from small donors. Even at this stage with as much as he has spent, he reportedly has $150,000,000 to spend between now and election day(and apparently intends to raise more
). That amount means nothing to him, so why would he fear alienating them(again assuming those contributions did even happen at all)?
A quick Google search yielded this -
Barack Obama
Quote:
Cash on Hand: $133,649,692
Debts: $691,446
Date of last report: Sep 30 2008 12:00AM
Individual contributions $543,360,105 90%
PAC contributions $1,030 0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $0 0%
Other $59,858,945 10%
John McCain
Quote:
Cash on Hand: $95,880,920
Debts: $551,957
Date of last report: Sep 30 2008 12:00AM
Individual contributions $193,991,664 54%
PAC contributions $1,375,110 0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $84,103,800 24%
Other $162,406,443 45%
Again - he does not need lobbyists, so he can afford to tell them to @!#$ off - and he does. One of his major selling points and earliest pledges(even when he was way behind the Clinton machine in polls and funding), that was to end lobbyist's stranglehold over Washington, D.C. Clinton basically ignored this, took their money blatantly, and basically said they lobbyists are a good thing. I don't know of any non-independent candidate who took that stand(let alone wasn't shortly thereafter buried by the Lobby's massive power structure).
If he is gonna be assassinated, it won't be over his race - but that is exactly what they will say and we will believe. It will be because he has pissed off all the wrong people who don't want to loose total control/power.
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
