[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by rnauman821

... How can you consider Obama a credible candidate 4 years ago and not consider either Paul or Johnson equal if not better candidates given their past experience?

It's self evident. He won the nomination and the election. The backing Paul and Johnson have is miniscule in comparison.

Originally Posted by rnauman821

Extremist views? Such as consumption tax? How about balancing the yearly budget? Is revoking the patriot act somehow extreme anymore? Ending Afghanistan and ending the world police role America has taken? These are extreme to you?

The consumption tax and balanced budget are extremist. Of course there is much more problematic extremism both candidates exhibit, such as returning to the gold standard and dismantling social security. Both men basically advocate policies that would destroy American society and possibly the global economy.

[yesme]

The stupidity in here is thick.

So if the government should always be in debt, it makes sense then that everyone should always be in debt that they never think about paying off right LTK?

So ever lasting debt is a great thing i take it?

Whats those interest payments on our debt right now LTK?

Now how about at 5%

7%

10%

OR like in the late 70's.....14%?

How good does our debt and interest payments look then?

[yesme]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

It's self evident. He won the nomination and the election. The backing Paul and Johnson have is miniscule in comparison.

By backing gonzo means the elite that control him had tons of backing, where johnson and paul would have broken the backs of those shady *** to big to fail tards.

[F1VENOM]

This must be the mythical president that can somehow supersede Congress and the Judiciary to write the law as he sees fit. Haven't heard that claim before.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

This must be the mythical president that can somehow supersede Congress and the Judiciary to write the law as he sees fit. Haven't heard that claim before.

The man currently in the seat has tried superseding with executive order. You didn't hear his speech about the legislative branch not acting so he will?

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

The man currently in the seat has tried superseding with executive order. You didn't hear his speech about the legislative branch not acting so he will?

He can pass a binding budget and set case law unilaterally?

[barrel roll]

Noooooope.


Interesting you brought up case law. People put an aweful lot of weight in it... I wonder if most know that the legislative branch has control over that (at least at the Supreme Court level).

[F1VENOM]

You mean by voting in nominees?

[barrel roll]

*Approves federal judge appointment, including Supreme Court justices
*Impeachment power (House)
*Trial of impeachments (Senate)
*Power to initiate constitutional amendments (to undo supreme court decisions)
*Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court
*Power to set jurisdiction of courts (they can tell a court that they can not hear a case on a certain topic)
*Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court (if the size is drastically increased the President may select all the new justices and change the sway of power)


Copied from another site, and just verified through Archives.GOV.

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

*Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court

There's also a pretty compelling argument that the legislature has the power to abolish courts inferior to the US Supreme Court.

[Tin-Man]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

The man currently in the seat has tried superseding with executive order. You didn't hear his speech about the legislative branch not acting so he will?

Ummm, Bush did that multiple times. Not 100% sure, but I believe more than any previous president.

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by Tin-Man

Ummm, Bush did that multiple times. Not 100% sure, but I believe more than any previous president.

He also had 8 years.

[licence2kill]

Originally Posted by yesme

The stupidity in here is thick.

So if the government should always be in debt, it makes sense then that everyone should always be in debt that they never think about paying off right LTK?

So ever lasting debt is a great thing i take it?

Whats those interest payments on our debt right now LTK?

Now how about at 5%

7%

10%

OR like in the late 70's.....14%?

How good does our debt and interest payments look then?

stop wasting my time

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Tin-Man

Ummm, Bush did that multiple times. Not 100% sure, but I believe more than any previous president.

I didn't mention it because we were specifically talking about the current president. George Walker Bush was also not the first man in that office to do so. Please forgive me if it came off that way.

[Tin-Man]

Originally Posted by rnauman821

So Obama who served as a state senator and part of a term as a US senator is a credible candidate? But Ron Paul who is a doctor, veteran, and has served in congress for 25 years is not a credible candidate?

Mitt Romney served one term as the governor of Mass. He is a credible candidate? Gary Johnson served two terms only because law limited him from running for a third. He balanced his state budget, eliminated pork spending at a record rate, increased funding to his schools, and cut taxes 12 times while in office. However he is not a credible candidate?

Stop it.

Agreed - The only thing that they could find on Paul during vetting was some overclaiming on his travel expenses, and that he helped his kids get jobs.

Romney is descended from a long line of polygamists trying to defend 'traditional' marriage. He's trying to bash Obamacare with his own state having done a similar program successfully. He's just a **** candidate who had more polish then the other turds the GOP put forward.

At least Paul stood for something.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Tin-Man

Ummm, Bush did that multiple times. Not 100% sure, but I believe more than any previous president.

No Bush may have abused the power of the executive order (arguable) but he did not come anywhere near signing the most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ecutive_orders

More than Obama so far though. FDR had the most by far far far.

[licence2kill]

i like how the same people who complain about executive orders don't say a thing about filibusters

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

i like how the same people who complain about executive orders don't say a thing about filibusters

Filibuster abuse is one of the largest problems facing the nation today.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

i like how the same people who complain about executive orders don't say a thing about filibusters

How do you end a filibuster? Do filibusters ever have a valid and non spiteful purpose?

[jamest91]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

i like how the same people who complain about executive orders don't say a thing about filibusters

communist! u are so evil! babykiller!! i dont think u even know wat is going on in the world today.


sorry i had to go all democrat on u lol

[shakeyjonez]

Originally Posted by jamest91

communist! u are so evil! babykiller!! i dont think u even know wat is going on in the world today.


sorry i had to go all democrat on u lol