Bush did it as fast as he could with Iraq. All Presidents do it. It is how you get things done.Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
Well, the UNEMPLOYED ones do.... but the rest of them.,...especially the ones who contribute here don't understand that the legislation had to go through fast.....because we were on the brink of tent cities in every area of the country....filled with hungry, unemployed.....just like after the last Depression.
The ONLY reason we don't look more like 1930 USA is that Obama DID pass big legislation fast, and started getting money out there in a hurry to stop the free fall.
Heck, he was probably the first President ever to go to the White House after his election and start working on this stuff BEFORE he was ever inaugurated....AND the Bush administration was GLAD for him to do it......
It SAVED them from looking even worse than they already looked....and from total economic freefall in the last months of the Bush administration.
That is simply not true. Bush did not rush through any legislation regarding Iraq or anything else. Let me walk you through the reality of what happened back after the 9/11 attack.
We were already in a state of war against Iraq. Dessert Storm was only in a state of cease fire (that was constantly violated by Iraq). The Commander-in-Chief could have restarted it at any time without any further Congressional approval. But Bush chose to first notify the UN and then the Democrats in Congress begged him to present them with a resolution simply so Congress could go on record as approving of the war. You see, at the time a lot of people were assuming it would be as quick and decisive as Dessert Storm had been. The Democrats wanted in on the glory.
It was only after things began to bog down that the revisionists began the false story that Bush somehow lied to get them to support the war. He clearly did not need their support and that is why your premise is flawed. Bush did not push thorough any legislation without due deliberation, debate and compromise.
What has been going on in Washington since this regime has taken control is unprecedented. Don't let anybody fool you about that. Never before has Congress voted for legislation without first reading it, arguing it point by point and compromising on it to achieve bipartisan support. NEVER!
Never has the will of the people been so dismissed and ignored before. NEVER! It is not supposed to happen this way.
*Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
first off it was almost a year after 9-11 before Bush was able to go to war in Iraq. Second, it took a vote from congress to declare war against Iraq. Third even the democrats voted to declare war on Iraq. This was is by no means getting things done fast. The last point I would like to make is that over 60% of the people were against the spending bills that Obama has passed so far. The president of the United States is supposed to represent the people, not tell the people to shut up and get out of the way. You are comparing apples to oranges here.
At least Bush wound up backing the legislation with fast action. A year after Obama needed that huge amount "fast", he still had not spent half of it. Keynesian economics theory requires a "sudden" jolt to the economy-much like a doctor jolts the heart with electricity to get it beating again. Obama just stuck a few nine volters on the patient's tongue and let them slowly trickle away.Why don't Republicans understand that President Obama needed to get his big legislation through fast?
There's a difference between what Bush did and what Obama did. Bush thought there was a serious national security concern that needed to be dealt with as soon as possible. There wasn't, but he thought there was. Obama realized that support for his policies was waning and passed legislation meant to deceive the American people.
You are right.
Obama admires Reagan (for some reason) and is using the same strategy... Aggression first, stability as follow-up.
His approval rating are almost a mirror copy of Reagan's...
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/d鈥?/a>
... with Obama only slightly higher.
And as we all know... Reagan had a very successful two terms.
of course dofus needed to ram his failed legislation through fast. he knows after novemeber he'll get nothing from congress.
Not to mention that he had to get it done before the voters had a chance to put a stop to his destruction of America...
I understand that. Who said republicans don't understand that?
Thanks for pointing out another reason why there is no difference in the two parties. Congrats! You are doing your country a great service.
There is a sense of urgency with war. Big government is only urgent for liberals.
Calling out the idiocy of our system.
Thank you.
can someone get me Steele's cell number? I want to go out and spend 7 millions on strippers with him.
Bush didnt rush into Iraq. it took years.
Yes.
0baama's Marxist agenda is DESTROYING this country... simple, huh?
Monday, January 23, 2012
What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
I am a new student on Prophecy. I grew up as an Adventist but feel I need to study and learn more on this issue on my own. So if anyone can help me with this question I would be really glad. I have been through prophecy serminars and have heard the theory of it all so you can go as deep as you need to.
I am mostly intrested in events which are currently taking place though and not so much on the theory of it all.
Help!!What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
Try asking on the religion forum. You might get more answers there. And most certainly better ones.What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
You will find this very interestesting -
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/sunday鈥?/a>What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
try to go at this site http://en.wikipedia.org/ maybe it's therexenon
I am mostly intrested in events which are currently taking place though and not so much on the theory of it all.
Help!!What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
Try asking on the religion forum. You might get more answers there. And most certainly better ones.What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
You will find this very interestesting -
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/sunday鈥?/a>What are the breaking news on the Legislation of the National Sunday Law?
try to go at this site http://en.wikipedia.org/ maybe it's there
What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
I don't want to hear about the recent healthcare bill.
To support your opinion, just name things the government did and how they worked out.What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
Social legislation is proposed by the high minded; written and enacted by the feeble minded (Congress); and then gamed and milked by the corrupt and cynical. The taxpayers pay for it and the career politicians use it to buy votes. The poor people and minorities still end up screwed.What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
That the republicans always claimed it would be the end of mankind on earth and they are always wrong.What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
Social legislation has helped America achieve a high overall standard of living for most of its citizens.
for one the FDA - regulating drugs (no more snake oil), Military
The rest is up to your own research but this is a start
To support your opinion, just name things the government did and how they worked out.What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
Social legislation is proposed by the high minded; written and enacted by the feeble minded (Congress); and then gamed and milked by the corrupt and cynical. The taxpayers pay for it and the career politicians use it to buy votes. The poor people and minorities still end up screwed.What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
That the republicans always claimed it would be the end of mankind on earth and they are always wrong.What can history teach us about social legislation in America?
Social legislation has helped America achieve a high overall standard of living for most of its citizens.
for one the FDA - regulating drugs (no more snake oil), Military
The rest is up to your own research but this is a start
Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
Yes, it deters busy fingers.
No, it is a feel good law.Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
The problem I have is once you allow them to start making small elements of life illegal, this invites them to find more.
What next I can't eat while I'm driving? I agree it's dangerous but I'm also worried once we allow these tiny elements to become criminal, it just opens the door for more. We should be working on removing laws, not creating more as time progresses.
Also texting is done on the down low, it's not like you're texting by your ear where it's visible. It also concerns me when laws are made to be broken, I think we have enough of those. There's no way for a cop to see if you're texting in your car, it would be baseless and yet another way to be pulled over for no reason.
Officer: Oh I thought you were texting, sorry about that but what's that on your backseat, step out of the car.
You can't create a law when there's no way to enforce the law. Unless cops have x-ray glasses now and can see you texting through your car.
Passing this law basically would give the police the right to pull you over for simply holding a cell phone, checking the time, it all could be interpreted as "texting".
When driving, you're supposed to pay attention, not yapping on the phone or texting nonsense to your friends.Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
no dumb butt dont be silly
What's really bad is that laws like these are needed. People are just too damn stupid to know that you should not be texting while driving.Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
I agree with Joe B. There's nothing I have against the law itself right now (except it's really not stopping anyone), but give them an inch and they'll take your freedom. (I know it's not the saying, but it's what they'll do)
As you say.... nothing fails like prayer. It's better to have a law that prevents potential accidents than prayer for those who were killed.
Freedom is an illusion, anyway.
The penalties should be the same as for drunk driving. Totally justified.
If you are driving - you should be paying attention to the road - not texting.
I think texting and cell phone yapping should be treated like drunk driving.
The last two accidents I was in was caused by cell phone yappers not paying attention.
Yes.
According to the National Safety Council, distracted drivers cause more than a third of all automobile accidents.
I can think of few things that make a driver more distracted than texting. Yes, changing the radio or programming a GPS can also be distracting, but your eyes are more on the road than when texting, where you are looking away for extended periods of time.
Video of accident while driver is texting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCHdZxO4_鈥?/a>
It really is redundant.
Texting falls under the category of driving while distracted.
That's already on the books and covers a heck of a lot more.
Since driving is a privilege and not a right, the law is not infringing on anyone's rights.
Yes.
No, it is a feel good law.Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
The problem I have is once you allow them to start making small elements of life illegal, this invites them to find more.
What next I can't eat while I'm driving? I agree it's dangerous but I'm also worried once we allow these tiny elements to become criminal, it just opens the door for more. We should be working on removing laws, not creating more as time progresses.
Also texting is done on the down low, it's not like you're texting by your ear where it's visible. It also concerns me when laws are made to be broken, I think we have enough of those. There's no way for a cop to see if you're texting in your car, it would be baseless and yet another way to be pulled over for no reason.
Officer: Oh I thought you were texting, sorry about that but what's that on your backseat, step out of the car.
You can't create a law when there's no way to enforce the law. Unless cops have x-ray glasses now and can see you texting through your car.
Passing this law basically would give the police the right to pull you over for simply holding a cell phone, checking the time, it all could be interpreted as "texting".
When driving, you're supposed to pay attention, not yapping on the phone or texting nonsense to your friends.Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
no dumb butt dont be silly
What's really bad is that laws like these are needed. People are just too damn stupid to know that you should not be texting while driving.Is text messaging legislation justifiable while driving a car?
I agree with Joe B. There's nothing I have against the law itself right now (except it's really not stopping anyone), but give them an inch and they'll take your freedom. (I know it's not the saying, but it's what they'll do)
As you say.... nothing fails like prayer. It's better to have a law that prevents potential accidents than prayer for those who were killed.
Freedom is an illusion, anyway.
The penalties should be the same as for drunk driving. Totally justified.
If you are driving - you should be paying attention to the road - not texting.
I think texting and cell phone yapping should be treated like drunk driving.
The last two accidents I was in was caused by cell phone yappers not paying attention.
Yes.
According to the National Safety Council, distracted drivers cause more than a third of all automobile accidents.
I can think of few things that make a driver more distracted than texting. Yes, changing the radio or programming a GPS can also be distracting, but your eyes are more on the road than when texting, where you are looking away for extended periods of time.
Video of accident while driver is texting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCHdZxO4_鈥?/a>
It really is redundant.
Texting falls under the category of driving while distracted.
That's already on the books and covers a heck of a lot more.
Since driving is a privilege and not a right, the law is not infringing on anyone's rights.
Yes.
Is the Insurance Corporations spending $ on Democrats to fight the passage of Health Care legislation?
= Abortion
or
do liberal women just need to get an abortion a week?Is the Insurance Corporations spending $ on Democrats to fight the passage of Health Care legislation?
Insurance companies are spending $1,000,000 per day only so they can stay on the gravy train. Private health insurance has a 25 to 30% overhead. Medicare only has a 3% overhead.Is the Insurance Corporations spending $ on Democrats to fight the passage of Health Care legislation?
Medicare is more like 7-9% administration costs, with private companies averaging from around 20 to 49%. You were on the right track though.
Lot of summing going on if they need one a week.
dont think so , the ads I am seeing from Insurance Corps are anti-health care
or
do liberal women just need to get an abortion a week?Is the Insurance Corporations spending $ on Democrats to fight the passage of Health Care legislation?
Insurance companies are spending $1,000,000 per day only so they can stay on the gravy train. Private health insurance has a 25 to 30% overhead. Medicare only has a 3% overhead.Is the Insurance Corporations spending $ on Democrats to fight the passage of Health Care legislation?
Medicare is more like 7-9% administration costs, with private companies averaging from around 20 to 49%. You were on the right track though.
Report Abuse
Is the Insurance Corporations spending $ on Democrats to fight the passage of Health Care legislation?Lot of summing going on if they need one a week.
dont think so , the ads I am seeing from Insurance Corps are anti-health care
Which Legislation do the shops need to be mindful of when using a loyalty card and why?
Need the as soon as possible please.Which Legislation do the shops need to be mindful of when using a loyalty card and why?
Privacy laws about releasing the personal information.
Anti-trust law if the loyalty card restricts trade or forces people to only buy certain products.
Privacy laws about releasing the personal information.
Anti-trust law if the loyalty card restricts trade or forces people to only buy certain products.
What legislation could the candidates support that would most advance equality?
between the sexes? Do Gender Issues effect your vote?What legislation could the candidates support that would most advance equality?
The Equal Rights Amendment as written protects men as well as women from discrimination based on sex. Pass the ERA!
the equal rights amendment.What legislation could the candidates support that would most advance equality?
There are more important issues than gender issues to vote on, right now. In America, anyways. If this was Kuwait or Iraq, probably, it would.
doesn't the bill of rights guaranty equal rights for all?What legislation could the candidates support that would most advance equality?
I didn't know there was inequality between the genders. Hell, I've worked for 6 female bosses.
The ERA, obviously, but I don't expect any of them to bring it up until some commentator does. (Maybe they should.)
I agree the ERA needs to be passed, even if the present laws are enforced, there are quite a few loopholes that depend on the Supreme Court to deal with, and the Supreme Court can change how they interpret the present laws at any time: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/
Here's what the ERA states:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Why is it still needed?
People think the 1963 Equal Pay Act, Title VII and Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, plus Supreme Court decisions
based on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, is enough to deal with sex discrimination.
But ERA supporters counter that legal sex discrimination is not yet a thing of the past, and progress of the past 40 years can be changed by court decisions and by congress. Title IX is under constant attack. While some remaining inequities are more the result of individual behavior and social practices than legal discrimination, they can all be
influenced by a strong message that the Constitution has zero tolerance for sex discrimination.
Quite a few important sex discrimination cases have been ignored by the Supreme Court. The ERA would make the need for this constant litigation mute.
Do gender issues affect my vote? Yes. I pay close attention before voting how candidates have voted on the Family and Medical Leave Act, Fair Pay Restoration Act, State Children's Health Insurance Program, CEDAW, Access to Birth Control Act, Freedom of Choice Act, Hate Crimes, Marriage, and Family Planning legislation.
nuclear war.traffic school
The Equal Rights Amendment as written protects men as well as women from discrimination based on sex. Pass the ERA!
the equal rights amendment.What legislation could the candidates support that would most advance equality?
There are more important issues than gender issues to vote on, right now. In America, anyways. If this was Kuwait or Iraq, probably, it would.
doesn't the bill of rights guaranty equal rights for all?What legislation could the candidates support that would most advance equality?
I didn't know there was inequality between the genders. Hell, I've worked for 6 female bosses.
The ERA, obviously, but I don't expect any of them to bring it up until some commentator does. (Maybe they should.)
I agree the ERA needs to be passed, even if the present laws are enforced, there are quite a few loopholes that depend on the Supreme Court to deal with, and the Supreme Court can change how they interpret the present laws at any time: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/
Here's what the ERA states:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Why is it still needed?
People think the 1963 Equal Pay Act, Title VII and Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, plus Supreme Court decisions
based on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, is enough to deal with sex discrimination.
But ERA supporters counter that legal sex discrimination is not yet a thing of the past, and progress of the past 40 years can be changed by court decisions and by congress. Title IX is under constant attack. While some remaining inequities are more the result of individual behavior and social practices than legal discrimination, they can all be
influenced by a strong message that the Constitution has zero tolerance for sex discrimination.
Quite a few important sex discrimination cases have been ignored by the Supreme Court. The ERA would make the need for this constant litigation mute.
Do gender issues affect my vote? Yes. I pay close attention before voting how candidates have voted on the Family and Medical Leave Act, Fair Pay Restoration Act, State Children's Health Insurance Program, CEDAW, Access to Birth Control Act, Freedom of Choice Act, Hate Crimes, Marriage, and Family Planning legislation.
nuclear war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)