So yeah, Newt Gingrich would want to subpeona judges to Congress and if necessary arrest them by U.S. Marshalls. Not because they were corrupt, but because he disagrees with them.
Yeah, I guess you don't have to care about the independence of the judiciary, or the fucking constitution, if you're president.
I don't think Newtynewt is anything to worry about. He's not evangelical enough for the evangelicals and not lunatic conservative enough for the fringe. He is just mean spirited and stupid enough to lead the pack and then get crushed by anyone who remembers his tenure in congress.
House Republicans have decided that the payroll tax extension of two months (that would have bought more time for them to work out how to continue to give payroll tax cuts for middle and lower income Americans and prolonged unemployment benefits) that the Senate voted to approve with an 80+ member, bi-partisan majority will be blocked and probably killed because THEY DON'T GET TO BUILD THEIR FUCKING PIPELINE AS PART OF A TAX/UNEMPLOYMENT BILL. Oh, and here's an image of their industrious leader with an appropriate amount of derp on his motherfucking mug.
Ron Paul will be absolutely spewing. Doubtless, he voted no on it, but stuffed it full of earmarks because he thought it would pass, like he normally does, but with this revelation, WHERE WILL HE GET HIS PORK?
I mean, other than all the other times he does exactly this and it works. So, pretty much every time.
Payroll tax is different. It is suposed to fund one particular program and taxes that work that way enjoy a more favorable view on the right than taxes that go into a big pot to fund unrelated items.
You know what's great, though? It's already handled by the states, and Dr. Paul would have no ability to actually alter the regulations of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO).
So he's promising something that, one, isn't really an issue that is handled at the federal level and, two, wouldn't be within his power to fix anyway.
I increasingly want Ron Paul to win, because it's the most expedient way to burn it all down.
You know what's great, though? It's already handled by the states, and Dr. Paul would have no ability to actually alter the regulations of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO).
So he's promising something that, one, isn't really an issue that is handled at the federal level and, two, wouldn't be within his power to fix anyway.
I increasingly want Ron Paul to win, because it's the most expedient way to burn it all down.
You'd also be out a job if he won - along with everyone else in the FDA, EPA or vast majority of Government departments. And he wants to remove all regulations by those departments, too - Including the Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance.
Oh, and you'd have no welfare while you were trying to find a job in the suddenly competitive-beyond-belief market, either, because he's getting rid of that, too.
Though, If Pron Haul wins the nomination, then there are two things that will happen - Obama will win by the biggest landslide since FDR, and I will die, crushed under the weight of the comedy-boner that such an occurrence would give me. Seriously, Imagine the fucking daily show and Colbert episodes we'll have if that racist, sexist old loon wins the nomination.
On the Upside - You'd no longer have any restrictions on starting your own brewery.
Okay, there is a difference between regulation at the state level and regulation at the federal level. Pete works for the state. The FDA, EPA, etc., are federal. The Constitution enumerates Federal powers and reserves the rest to the states. There is no chance of Ron Paul eliminating the ability of states to regulate the stuff they are allowed to regulate.
Okay, there is a difference between regulation at the state level and regulation at the federal level. Pete works for the state. The FDA, EPA, etc., are federal. The Constitution enumerates Federal powers and reserves the rest to the states. There is no chance of Ron Paul eliminating the ability of states to regulate the stuff they are allowed to regulate.
Derp, my mistake. I thought Pete's work was a Fed institution, not state. My tradition of being the easily confused village idiot lives on.
While I have the opportunity to ask you, what would he be able to do?
On the Upside - You'd no longer have any restrictions on starting your own brewery.
I generally support the brewing regulations. The main problem is that the current regulatory environment has yet to adequately account for an emerging business model in the brewing industry.
There is no chance of Ron Paul eliminating the ability of states to regulate the stuff they are allowed to regulate.
Exactly. Which makes the statement particularly egregious; Ron Paul is all about state's rights - allegedly - but the only way to enact his plan would be to remove the right of a state to regulate a product how it chooses!
I generally support the brewing regulations. The main problem is that the current regulatory environment has yet to adequately account for an emerging business model in the brewing industry.
Oh, I know. And I don't doubt that if they didn't exist, you'd follow the vast majority of them anyway(Obviously, it would be impossible to follow anything that required government intervention or licencing, since that system wouldn't be there, but I mean all the health and safety stuff.)
While I have the opportunity to ask you, what would he be able to do?
That's kind of a complicated question. There are people who devote their entire lives to the study of it.
Suffice it to say MOST of the things Presidential candidates claim they will do, they do not have the power to do. What they mean is they will support action in that direction. Most of the time, what they are claiming is actually within the power of Congress. Sometimes it is in the power of the State governments exclusively. Occasionally they actually claim they will do something the President can do. The executive power is primarily an enforcement power, though the President can make law through an Executive Order (which can be repealed by a subsequent President just as easily).
There are two plausible explanations for this: either the candidates do not understand how our government works OR they are exploiting the fact that the voters mostly do not understand how the government works.
There are two plausible explanations for this: either the candidates do not understand how our government works OR they are exploiting the fact that the voters mostly do not understand how the government works.
Well considering that I've seen Obama begin blamed for everything, the second option seems quite likely.
While I have the opportunity to ask you, what would he be able to do?
That's kind of a complicated question. There are people who devote their entire lives to the study of it.
Well, basically, he wants to -
-Bring all overseas troops home immediately and close all bases. Not quickly-as-possible, but immediately.
-End all foreign aid and trade agreements of any sort.
-Audit the federal reserve with an eye to either getting rid of it, or simply allowing competing currencies to be legal tender. Also, Auditing every scrap of gold the US government owns, because he thinks the federal reserve is secretly trading and selling it.
-Withdraw from all International organizations, from NAFTA and the WTO(which he may or may not also believe is part of a conspiracy), through to NATO, the UN, and any international courts.
-Fence off and fortify the border with Mexico, generally fortify all borders.
-Cut the vast majority of taxes.
-Tightly control immigration
- Re-introduce Letters of marque and reprisal as a common thing(They're still legal, I'm led to believe, and still able to be issued, but they haven't been since the 1800s)
-Cut nearly every federal department and social program.
-Get rid of a whole slew of laws and regulations, ranging across the board, everything from Workplace health and safety through to anti-discrimination laws, putting that power in the hands of the states.
-Deregulate business pretty much entirely
-Give Juries the status of Tribunals
Just as a very broad overview, I guess. I figure he can do the first without much intervention from congress - being the commander in chief, and congress not really being part of the chain of command, to the best of my knowledge - but as for the rest, I'm mostly only hazy.
It's kind of unfortunate. The President is the head of (what I think is) the weakest branch of our government. However, he is the most visible officer and the symbolic head of our national government, so the public identifies him as the major power player in the federal government's activity. Which, in a way, is accurate... when Congress isn't acting like a room full of petulant 2-year-olds who missed their naps. Obama's current problem is that his administration (and party) isn't using that public eye to his advantage.
Just as a very broad overview, I guess. I figure he can do the first without much intervention from congress - being the commander in chief, and congress not really being part of the chain of command, to the best of my knowledge - but as for the rest, I'm mostly only hazy.
Paul doesn't understand that "withdrawing" from many of these things will actually hurt the US. Particularly because many international agreements have a clause that says something like "If someone doesn't want to play by these rules, then nobody in this group can play with them!" So yeah, if he wants to cut off half of all foreign trade, he can try to withdraw from some trade agreements. What he CAN'T do is withdraw from customary international law, which governs certain international activities.
He could audit the Federal Reserve, but if it's established by an act of Congress then it's got to be gotten rid of the same way. Likewise with all those federal agencies that were established by Congress. If the President wants to withdraw from all foreign military operations, that's gonna have to be paid for. Guess who holds the purse strings? Congress.
Even if he had the power to cut taxes (Congress has it) and the power to build fences and fortify borders (more likely, but still very difficult because of eminent domain and state sovereignty issues), how is he going to do both? He just lost us all our tax revenue and closed down half our international trade (cutting GDP, resulting in even lower tax revenues). Now he wants to buy a fence and fortifications? Looks like Daddy needs another mortgage.
He is right about one thing: The current government regulatory structure is way too complex (and redundant) and needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up now that we have a better idea about what areas we need regulated. The problem is he's going about it wrong if he thinks leaving it up to individual states is goign to work. We tried that before. That's where "Race to the Bottom" was coined. All the states competed with each other for business, so they got more and more lax about regulation.
Oh, I forgot to mention - He also wants to default on the National Debt. And I don't mean "His plans will lead the US into being forced to default on the National Debt", though that is likely, I mean he wants to intentionally Default on the debt.
I have the feeling he wants to draw curtains around us and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist. While I agree that we have enough problems at home to fix, I think that's unrealistic. Because it is. Unfortunately a lot of folks don't understand that.
There are two plausible explanations for this: either the candidates do not understand how our government works OR they are exploiting the fact that the voters mostly do not understand how the government works.
Well considering that I've seen Obama begin blamed for everything, the second option seems quite likely.
You both neglected the ever-popular "All of the above" option.
There are two plausible explanations for this: either the candidates do not understand how our government works OR they are exploiting the fact that the voters mostly do not understand how the government works.
Well considering that I've seen Obama begin blamed for everything, the second option seems quite likely.
You both neglected the ever-popular "All of the above" option.
You are right. Let me change my answer to the option d) No one understands how you government works.
There are two plausible explanations for this: either the candidates do not understand how our government works OR they are exploiting the fact that the voters mostly do not understand how the government works.
Well considering that I've seen Obama begin blamed for everything, the second option seems quite likely.
You both neglected the ever-popular "All of the above" option.
You are right. Let me change my answer to the option d) No one understands how you government works.
In news that will shock absolutely no one: Sarah Palin found guilty of major ethics violations. She was trying to pull the whole "unlimited, anonymous money" that several other Republicans have tried to pull, except since she's a politically and legally ignorant moron and apparently so is everyone that works for her, she got caught.
In news that will shock absolutely no one: Sarah Palin found guilty of major ethics violations. She was trying to pull the whole "unlimited, anonymous money" that several other Republicans have tried to pull, except since she's a politically and legally ignorant moron and apparently so is everyone that works for her, she got caught.
According to the comment section of the blog you linked to this story is about 18 months old and the money was returned. Sounds like she got some bad legal advice before she set the fund up. My outrage is directed at the lawyer who gave the bad legal advice.
I'm still curious as to what's going to happen to the PAC money that was collected, when people thought she was going to run for President. I wonder if there's a lawsuit out there for that.
I'm still curious as to what's going to happen to the PAC money that was collected, when people thought she was going to run for President. I wonder if there's a lawsuit out there for that.
Depends. Was it an "I am running" or an "I am exploring the idea of running" PAC?
Comments
Yeah, I guess you don't have to care about the independence of the judiciary, or the fucking constitution, if you're president.
Oh, and his tax plan is shit too.
Oh, and here's an image of their industrious leader with an appropriate amount of derp on his motherfucking mug.
I mean, other than all the other times he does exactly this and it works. So, pretty much every time.
You know what's great, though? It's already handled by the states, and Dr. Paul would have no ability to actually alter the regulations of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO).
So he's promising something that, one, isn't really an issue that is handled at the federal level and, two, wouldn't be within his power to fix anyway.
I increasingly want Ron Paul to win, because it's the most expedient way to burn it all down.
Oh, and you'd have no welfare while you were trying to find a job in the suddenly competitive-beyond-belief market, either, because he's getting rid of that, too.
Though, If Pron Haul wins the nomination, then there are two things that will happen - Obama will win by the biggest landslide since FDR, and I will die, crushed under the weight of the comedy-boner that such an occurrence would give me. Seriously, Imagine the fucking daily show and Colbert episodes we'll have if that racist, sexist old loon wins the nomination.
On the Upside - You'd no longer have any restrictions on starting your own brewery.
While I have the opportunity to ask you, what would he be able to do?
Suffice it to say MOST of the things Presidential candidates claim they will do, they do not have the power to do. What they mean is they will support action in that direction. Most of the time, what they are claiming is actually within the power of Congress. Sometimes it is in the power of the State governments exclusively. Occasionally they actually claim they will do something the President can do. The executive power is primarily an enforcement power, though the President can make law through an Executive Order (which can be repealed by a subsequent President just as easily).
There are two plausible explanations for this: either the candidates do not understand how our government works OR they are exploiting the fact that the voters mostly do not understand how the government works.
-Bring all overseas troops home immediately and close all bases. Not quickly-as-possible, but immediately.
-End all foreign aid and trade agreements of any sort.
-Audit the federal reserve with an eye to either getting rid of it, or simply allowing competing currencies to be legal tender. Also, Auditing every scrap of gold the US government owns, because he thinks the federal reserve is secretly trading and selling it.
-Withdraw from all International organizations, from NAFTA and the WTO(which he may or may not also believe is part of a conspiracy), through to NATO, the UN, and any international courts.
-Fence off and fortify the border with Mexico, generally fortify all borders.
-Cut the vast majority of taxes.
-Tightly control immigration
- Re-introduce Letters of marque and reprisal as a common thing(They're still legal, I'm led to believe, and still able to be issued, but they haven't been since the 1800s)
-Cut nearly every federal department and social program.
-Get rid of a whole slew of laws and regulations, ranging across the board, everything from Workplace health and safety through to anti-discrimination laws, putting that power in the hands of the states.
-Deregulate business pretty much entirely
-Give Juries the status of Tribunals
Just as a very broad overview, I guess. I figure he can do the first without much intervention from congress - being the commander in chief, and congress not really being part of the chain of command, to the best of my knowledge - but as for the rest, I'm mostly only hazy.
He could audit the Federal Reserve, but if it's established by an act of Congress then it's got to be gotten rid of the same way. Likewise with all those federal agencies that were established by Congress. If the President wants to withdraw from all foreign military operations, that's gonna have to be paid for. Guess who holds the purse strings? Congress.
Even if he had the power to cut taxes (Congress has it) and the power to build fences and fortify borders (more likely, but still very difficult because of eminent domain and state sovereignty issues), how is he going to do both? He just lost us all our tax revenue and closed down half our international trade (cutting GDP, resulting in even lower tax revenues). Now he wants to buy a fence and fortifications? Looks like Daddy needs another mortgage.
He is right about one thing: The current government regulatory structure is way too complex (and redundant) and needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up now that we have a better idea about what areas we need regulated. The problem is he's going about it wrong if he thinks leaving it up to individual states is goign to work. We tried that before. That's where "Race to the Bottom" was coined. All the states competed with each other for business, so they got more and more lax about regulation.
Sarah Palin found guilty of major ethics violations.
She was trying to pull the whole "unlimited, anonymous money" that several other Republicans have tried to pull, except since she's a politically and legally ignorant moron and apparently so is everyone that works for her, she got caught.