You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
You are really dumb, he has told the truth. Countless times you chose to ignore it and have no further arguement. Maybe throwing people under the bus is how the people you vote for chose to roll. He can man up and admit he made a mistake and not blame "drugs/rehab" like all these other morons you hear about in the media. What does dragging other people into the mud teach aside from having no responsibility. He has already apologized for printing that under his name. Clearly in your eyes standing up for the constitution is racist because it only applies to white people right?
He gave his answer the ethnic population has responded with giving him the highest number of votes. So are you going to be like an emotional woman who argues on emotion with no fact and logic and just chose to keep calling him racist? If thats the case I may as well ignore you now, however if you do with to bring up any new/real points to debate i'll gladly shut you down.
Last edited by Death2Theft; 12-27-2011 at 06:20 PM.
Hey any time you want to put him up against bush jr on a iq test to see who can "run a country" I'm sure he wont back down if you can set it up. People dont always have to stay ignorant so there is hope for you yet.
Back then he was focused on being a doctor with the news letter being secondary. Now that he has his attention fully focused on one thing you better watch out.
[quote=Manic!;7739798]
Quote:
Originally Posted by will068
Back when he was 56 years old. He couldn't run a news letter but thinks he can run a country.
Still don't have any names from him on who wrote the letters. If he paid them he should have some records.
Best for him to take responsibility for the oversight as publisher (which he did) than drilling down to whoever he hired at that time and blaming them.
Btw, please fix your quotes when quoting me. Thanks.
Best for him to take responsibility for the oversight as publisher (which he did) than drilling down to whoever he hired at that time and blaming them.
Btw, please fix your quotes when quoting me. Thanks.
So let's not find out who did it. You think that's a good way to run a country?
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
Absolutely, because we then wouldn't be wasting time or tax dollars on shit that doesn't matter. Just like people shitting all over Clinton when he got busted on shit that had no bearing on running the country. Unlike then, we have way more important issues at hand and the constitution/liberty trumps ALL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic!
So let's not find out who did it. You think that's a good way to run a country?
If black america benefit from Ron Paul being president, i'm sure they could care less about something he wrote 22 years ago. Finding out who did it doesn't always put the issue to rest. This is an extreme example, but take the assassination of JFK. Lee Harvey Oswald was apparently the lone gunman. To this day, there are ppl who doubt that and try to seek the truth. Chances are nobody will ever find out. Ron Paul could just as easily name a scapegoat but it wouldn't matter and it doesn't seem like something he would do. It's his honest character that has won so many ppl over imo.
*just wanted to add it's kinda fitting to mention jfk seeing how some view him as the last honest president who didn't work for the bankers.
I am hardly defending him I've just shown my support x392048 times by saying he supports liberty and the constitution while you say he's a racist. I prove it doesn't matter to the ethnic groups he's won over and you still dont know when to shut up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic!
So instead of promoting Ron Paul and his idea's in this thread all his supporters have been doing is defending him. Good luck winning a election.
So instead of promoting Ron Paul and his idea's in this thread all his supporters have been doing is defending him. Good luck winning a election.
I guess I have made my point.
If you want to think of it that way, then you could also think about it as one guy who doesn't really give a shit trying to derail the process just to prove that the people who care about it actually care about it enough to try and argue their side to someone who isn't actually listening.
all you've been doing is ignoring what's said and continuing on and on with your view that he's a racist..... even if its refuted you continue.....
unless your point was to show that you're thickheaded
:P
And you think the American public is smart? Newt was on CNN and he bought up the issue too. None of the media and none of the politicians are going to stop attacking in on this issue. Even if he gets elected president nothing will happen because he will get no support from the house or senate. Non of the other politicians on either side like him. That's why he has a real hard time getting support and co-signers for any of his bills. He can sit in the white house twiddling his thumbs.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
if he gets the presidency he can just push through whatever he wants even if the senate etc dont agree with him thats what Bush did
Obama can too but he doesnt want to for some odd reason and thats what makes him look weak (but if he did push things through they'll use that against him too)
Quote:
Ms Bachmann's own Iowa campaign suffered a major setback, as its manager Kent Sorenson resigned and endorsed Mr Paul.
"When the Republican establishment is going to be coming after Ron Paul, I thought it is my duty to come to his aid," Mr Sorenson said, quoted by Reuters news agency.
Wednesday's Public Policy Polling survey found Mr Paul leading in Iowa on 24%, ahead of Mr Romney on 20% and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich third on 13%.
if he gets the presidency he can just push through whatever he wants even if the senate etc dont agree with him thats what Bush did
Obama can too but he doesnt want to for some odd reason and thats what makes him look weak (but if he did push things through they'll use that against him too)
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, bypowers vested in the government by the Constitution.
Also: legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate may override a Presidential veto of legislation.
Bush had support from the republicans.
The congress can make a low. If Ron Paul dosn't like it he can veto it. But the congress can overturn the veto with 2/3 support.
The congress can also impeach the president.
Ron Paul would be a lame duck president. Being president does not make you got.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
bush introduce special powers for the president that would allow them to bypass all that
something about congress being unconstitutional if it had powers over the president blah blah blah
Blah Blah Blah. Need more info than that. Again 2/3rds majority can overturn any presidential veto. They can also keep sending the same bill to the president to sign. Without support from the congress the president will have a hard time doing anything.
A presidential veto is the rejection of a bill passed by the majority votes of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. While Congress can vote to override a presidential veto, causing the bill to become law without the president's approval, this is rarely done. More often than not, the threat of presidential veto is sufficient motivation for Congress to modify the bill prior to its final passage. This article provides a brief overview of procedures involved in vetoing a bill and the ways Congress can respond to a presidential veto.
The Veto Process
When a bill is passed by both the House and Senate, it is sent to the president for his signature. All bills and joint resolutions, except those proposing amendments to the Constitution, must be signed by the president before they become law. Amendments to the Constitution, which require a two-thirds vote of approval in each chamber, are sent directly to the states for ratification. When presented with legislation passed by both houses of Congress, the president is constitutionally required to act on it in one of four ways: sign it into law within the 10-day period prescribed in the Constitution, issue a regular veto, let the bill become law without his signature or issue a "pocket" veto.
Regular veto
When Congress is in session, the president may, within the 10-day period, exercise a regular veto by sending the unsigned bill back to the chamber of Congress from which it originated along with a veto message stating his reasons for rejecting it. Currently, the president must veto the bill in its entirety. He may not veto individual provisions of the bill while approving others. Rejecting individual provisions of a bill is called a "line-item" veto. In 1996, Congress passed a law granting President Clinton the power to issue line-item vetoes, only to have the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional in 1998.
Bill becomes law without president's signature
When Congress is not adjourned, and the president fails to either sign or veto a bill sent to him by the end of the 10-day period, it becomes law without his signature.
The pocket veto
When Congress is adjourned, the president can reject a bill by simply refusing to sign it. This action is known as a "pocket veto," coming from the analogy of the president simply putting the bill in his pocket and forgetting about it. Unlike a regular veto, Congress has neither the opportunity or constitutional authority to override a pocket veto.
How Congress responds to a veto
When the President returns a bill to the chamber of Congress from which it came, along with his objections in the form of a veto message, that chamber is constitutionally required to "reconsider" the bill. The Constitution is silent, however, on the meaning of "reconsideration." According to the Congressional Research Service, procedure and tradition govern the treatment of vetoed bills. "On receipt of the vetoed bill, the President's veto message is read into the journal of the receiving house. After entering the message into the journal, the House of Representatives or the Senate complies with the constitutional requirement to 'reconsider' by laying the measure on the table (essentially stopping further action on it), referring the bill to committee, postponing consideration to a certain day, or immediately voting on reconsideration (vote on override)."
Overriding a veto
Action by both the House and the Senate is required to override a presidential veto. A two-thirds majority vote of the Members present is required to override a presidential veto. If one house fails to override a veto, the other house does not attempt to override, even if the votes are present to succeed. The House and Senate may attempt to override a veto anytime during the Congress in which the veto is issued. Should both houses of Congress successfully vote to override a presidential veto, the bill becomes law. According the the Congressional Research service, from 1789 through 2004, only 106 of 1,484 regular presidential vetoes were overridden by Congress.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
So let's not find out who did it. You think that's a good way to run a country?
His organization probably knows who wrote it. Being the chief executive/head of the organization, it is his duty to take blame.
Just like any other head of an organization, the sole responsibility of blame or praise is directed towards the top executive - especially the negative outcomes. In this case, yes it is an excellent way to run an organization when you don't use scapegoats.
Now is it best for his campaign to go public on the subordinate who wrote the actual paper or the lower level editors who let this pass ? If you do a cost/benefit analysis on this, it's best to just be consistent with what RP's been saying all along. He acknowledges the mistake, and disavows the message. He also has the most organized campaign out of all the GOP candidates, I'm sure this tells you that he's improved his organizational and leadership skills over the years. But to some, this still may not be enough improvement.
And you think the American public is smart? Newt was on CNN and he bought up the issue too. None of the media and none of the politicians are going to stop attacking in on this issue. Even if he gets elected president nothing will happen because he will get no support from the house or senate. Non of the other politicians on either side like him. That's why he has a real hard time getting support and co-signers for any of his bills. He can sit in the white house twiddling his thumbs.
When the public sees this, they will vote for senators and congressmen/women who will align themselves to his values.
If you he gets elected president, this means a large chunk of people align themselves with his vision. This would translate in who the public will vote 2 years down the line for congress and senate.
Do you know why Obama's support has decreased. It's because he backed down on what he promised during his campaign. Not because he pursued and was rejected by the house in the issues he was proposing, but he acted upon on the opposite of what he promised in 2008.
Obama wanted to make wall street execs pay ? Did he ? No? Did he even try ? No. Instead, he hired the very same people who advised in orchestrating the deregulation of rules that were placed since after the depression. The same regulations that were placed to prevent a financial depression.
Did Obama close down guantanamo like he promised ? No. Did he end the war on Iraq ? The fucking troops are still there dying for NOTHING. The soldiers are not saving America, democracy, or fighting for freedom. They are being lead by a government that wants to steal resources from overseas.
The scary thing is, if you talk to some Americans, they would agree that stealing resources from oversees is their right. That is a fucking scary thought. That's why you have GOP candidates who focusing on Iran. If we really love freedom, why won't the USA invade North Korea and have South Korea help out ? Well, there's no money to be made in it.
Hey if Obama can go to war without the approval of senate or house..... Along with all his "executive order" crap. I'm sure RP could use those powers for good as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic!
And you think the American public is smart? Newt was on CNN and he bought up the issue too. None of the media and none of the politicians are going to stop attacking in on this issue. Even if he gets elected president nothing will happen because he will get no support from the house or senate. Non of the other politicians on either side like him. That's why he has a real hard time getting support and co-signers for any of his bills. He can sit in the white house twiddling his thumbs.
Last edited by Death2Theft; 12-29-2011 at 06:39 AM.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If black america benefit from Ron Paul being president, i'm sure they could care less about something he wrote 22 years ago. Finding out who did it doesn't always put the issue to rest. This is an extreme example, but take the assassination of JFK. Lee Harvey Oswald was apparently the lone gunman. To this day, there are ppl who doubt that and try to seek the truth. Chances are nobody will ever find out. Ron Paul could just as easily name a scapegoat but it wouldn't matter and it doesn't seem like something he would do. It's his honest character that has won so many ppl over imo.
