Democrats Are Making Income Inequality Worse

who in theeee black side of hell are YOU talking about?

 

Feinstein guilty of insider trading..gets the law changed so that Congress could enjoy the benefits of insider trading.
Obama guilty of altering law. That is done strictly by Congress, not the king.
Reid guilty of using illegal aliens as house and yard workers.
All have encouraged domestic spying, all have exempted them from the very laws they pass on us.
I believe these are acts of traitors.....
and you think anyone who disagrees with you is a criminal.

 

why is it youLibs favor totalitarian forms of government? What is it that makes you believe that they can do no wrong?
Dude, take a long look into history. Germans worshipped the ground that itler walked on? do you really think so?
I would suggest, because of a reading handicap, that you watch "The Third Reich" on the History channel and see what happens when people worship power. By the way, these two are presented in the peoples point of view

 

Lol! You folks are a lot of laughs. If she or a group got together to change it to yes or no, it doesn't make it illegal or a crime.

The very evidence by our own words without proof, proves you are full of it. "I believe these are acts of traitors". Lol! I believe I saw Bigfoot walking down the street the other day too.

 

Link from a reliable source accusing her of insider trading.

Another yahoo that thinks Obama is a King? How many of you are there? It's sad to see so much proof of the failure of the American education system.

Anyway, regarding the ACA, since the ACA mandated the exchanges, and the exchanges were admittedly buggy, there was no way he could have enforced the law fairly when the mandated exchanges were not properly working. Congress also has the power to delegate to executive departments or to the President, certain powers that would be normally reserved for Congress. If you don't like it, too bad, there's no Constitutional prohibition on it, and you would not be able to get very far in a lawsuit.

Not taking your word for that either. Proof from a reliable source.

You'll notice there's no Constitutional prohibition on either of those activities.

I believe you are full of crap and don't know what the definition of the term "traitor" is.

No, just bat-crap crazy.

No, there's GOPers mad at him for being a foreign-born Muslim socialist, just ask Taxcutter, PF's resident encyclopedia of Conservative conspiracy theories.

You can't get mad about Obama's lies and corruption and then support the GOP's lies, or corruption.

Economic fallacies? I don't see Obama implementing trickle-down economics the way Reagan and Dubya did.

It didn't? So the ratification of two out of the three Amendments under Johnson is going nowhere?

Of course Grant campaigned on the Amendments! He was a Republican! The amendments were Republican darlings! He won the Presidency, not on that, but on the fact that he was the Union's greatest war hero. The American public was just not educated enough to realize that he had no business being President, no matter what his war record says. That's why he won a second term.

All that is, is a proclamation saying to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. The executive branch has very little power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, which is usually done through the courts. Now you're not just showing ignorance of history, but your usual ignorance of civics.

Again, the crash of 1873 proves you know little of what you speak on. One historian is enough for me to know you're full of it.

And yet, as soon as Reconstruction ended, the KKK reemerged, so they must not have been all that crushed. Like I said before, that's not crushing the Klan, that's like scaring pigeons away from Trafalgar Square. No matter how many you scare away, others will take their place.

So you excuse corruption if it's the GOP doing it. I don't buy duplicitous behavior like that. You're either against corruption, or you're not. There were plenty of other companies that could have undercut Haliburton's offer, but since there was no bidding process, we'll never know, and why wasn't there a bidding process? Dick freaking Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton in the 90s!

George W. Bush. If the United States was a party to the Rome Statute, chances are, Bush would have faced war crimes charges for Iraq.

How is that even a pertinent or cogent response to his question? Oh wait, it's not!

If you want to see them face criminal charges, bring your evidence to a lawyer and file a criminal complaint so the Judge that hears your case can turn around and tell you to sit down and shut up because you don't know what's illegal and what is legal.

And that's twenty-eight posts for Godwin's law.

I would suggest you realize that there is a vast world of difference between the United States of America and Nazi Germany. In Nazi Germany, you would have already been executed for talking like this

 

then why is it legal for them and illegal for us?

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/congress-exempts-itself-from-liability-for-criminal-acts.
I can only assume that since you were wrong about this, the rest of your post is in error.....so stay with it.
we are not talking about Bush, stay focused.
IF you were a true in-depth scholar of WWII, you would see, easily, that almost all of our current society has evolved along the same lines as Germany, pre-war. The only difference is that we aren't quite there yet. Look at how militant the Libs have become, soldiers for Fascism, embracing the police state and total government control, demanding that Rights should be privileges, and that every able-bodied person work for the other guy (healthcare) forced at gunpoint (law), to support a beast [Fed Gov] that is consuming everything.
So you favor using drones on American soil....tyranny and the acts of a paranoid government. Obama is guilty of international war crimes.
Obama is changing the law through EO. He is NOT the king of America, that is Congress' job. (remember he has claimed he can rule without Congress) that alone should scare the hell out of you.

If you were a true student of history, today, there's not much difference. So, there's no public executions, but what is the difference between hard tyranny and soft tyranny? In both, your Rights are largely ignored, you may be abused by the system, and you are guilty before the law is even written (gun debate).
If our government is truly reflective of our society, we are in a sad state.

 

Tightening the money supply would have been DISASTROUS after the recession. We are in deflation...

 

I was not wrong about it, I demanded proof that she had the law changed to allow for insider trading as a member of Congress. I do not see that she did. Instead, the only information I can find is that the practice was de facto legal thanks to loopholes within the law that were closed with the STOCK Act.

It also does not say that she has violated the STOCK Act, and since the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, she is in the clear.

You are accusing a Democrat of much the same behavior that occurred under the Bush Administration.

I have not presented myself as a scholar on any topic. I am a student of American history and Constitutional law. I do not take the label "scholar" for myself.

Liberals are not the ones running around joining militias, those are Conservatives. The rise of right-wing militant groups during Obama's terms likely rivals the 1990s.

Many Liberals realize that there needs to be rational limits to rights to ensure the proper functioning of society as a whole. That is a far cry from fascism or embracing a police state.

This is not the topic to discuss healthcare, there are other threads for that subject, however, I will say you are completely misrepresenting the ACA.

I have not endorsed, nor have I opposed the practice of drones. Again, tyranny would be you being shot for calling Obama a tyrant.

If he is, so is Bush.

Cite an Executive Order that changed a statute.

Now you have backtracked and said that he is not the king. Make up your mind. Either he is a king, or he is not.

If Congress is not going to do their job, there is no other recourse. The President's job, per the Oath of Office, is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. If the Congress is not going to live up to their own oath to do the same, it is an exigent circumstance that the Constitution does not have the capacity to deal with. Understandable, considering the Constitution predates the first political party.

I'm still waiting to hear how gun owners have had their firearms taken away from them.

The elected portion of our government has not been reflective of our society since the Civil War.

 

Romney ran in 2012. The worst recovery in American history has been going on since June of 09

 

Like I said, tightening the money supply right now would be disastrous. We have a serious looming deflation problem.

 

Now? You think we are producing more then the money is keeping up with? If we have deflation it is because lack of certainty and demand. Like Japan.

 

Why do you think are demand is so poor?

 

the bush trickle down policies combined by the corps outsourcing jobs has made inequality worse

we need a bottom up approach and the top 10% need to give back what they got as they failed to deliver the trickle down


.

 

the banks were failing in dec 2008, the economy is better, but only because of the stimulous

if we do not address foreign outsourcing and foreign imports, it will be the end of our economy, when is congress gonna draft up some new bills addressing this issue?

.

 

It isn't complicated at all. The middle and lower classes drive a consumer-based economy. They are broke. If you fix that, you fix the economy. Giving the rich more wealth and tax cuts won't fix anything.

 

You mean by cutting the corporate tax rate? I am not sure. Soon hopefully.

TARP wasn't the stimulus, the stimulus refers to the ARA and later QE. ARA was big waste, and QE just inflates a bubble, it is causing inflation where the money is going, basically the stock market. (I get it doesn't work that way technically, but that is the effect you get that portion right we are on the same page?) High interest rates will kill debt held by corporations, we should have stopped this nonsense a long time ago.

 

Under pressure from the public in 2011, Congress voted to make itself criminally culpable in the same illegal activities with which ordinary citizens are charged with regard to insider trading. Insider trading on Wall St. had become a hot button issue after the collapse of 2007, and Congress had a point to make with the voting public, particularly in the run up to an election year....
But quietly, under the radar screen, all of that changed. After making a public spectacle of righteous indignation and humbling themselves to submit to the same laws the peons of the populace must follow, Congress secretly reinstated the exemptions they had enjoyed prior to the time when the public shamed them into submitting to the same laws they pass for ordinary citizens.
http://www.examiner.com/article/congress-exempts-itself-from-liability-for-criminal-acts
Of course, after that report came out and got lots of attention, Congress had to act, and within months they had passed the STOCK Act with overwhelming support in Congress to make insider trading laws that apply to everyone else finally apply to Congress and Congressional staffers as well. As that link notes:
The lopsided votes showed lawmakers desperate to regain public trust in an election year, when the public approval rating of Congress has sunk below 15 percent.
Of course, here we are in 2013 and, lo and behold, it is no longer an election year. And apparently some of the details of the ban on insider trading were beginning to chafe Congressional staffers, who found it hard to pad their income with some friendly trades on insider knowledge.

So... with very little fanfare, Congress quietly rolled back a big part of the law late last week. Specifically the part that required staffers to post disclosures about their financial transactions, so that the public could make sure there was no insider trading going on. Congress tried to cover up this fairly significant change because they, themselves, claimed that it would pose a "national risk" to have this information public. A national risk to their bank accounts. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...rolls-back-insider-trading-rules-itself.shtml

why do you keep bringing up Bush when we are talking about Obama? stay focused

so, you admit you may be insufficient to world history.

more misdirection.

No Rights equal fascism Reduced Rights equal privilege

this is socialism. socialism fails. Communism takes over. Obama can rule without Congress, remember?

Hitler didn't impose that until he became dictator and his power was assured. Again, you'd know that if you were a historian. Once in power, his enemies were killed. and yes, people were shot because of a dissenting voice. He didn't just drop into office and start killing the Jews. He waited almost 6 years before he moved against them. His first act was to make Jews owning guns, illegal. We know what happened next.

again, with the Bush thing......we are not talking about bush............

changing Obamacare without approval of Congress. due dates that were established bylaw, enrollment dates established through law, exemptions for certain groups

baiting and juvenile

easy enough to justify braking the law. he's hardly preserving the Constitution. Obamacare is not constitutional. Providing illegal firearms to criminals is unconstitutional. Not stopping the flow of illegals across our borders is a major failing on his part.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/new-york-city-begins-nazi-style-gun-confiscation/#axzz2wLlUR139
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/19/us-usa-newyork-guns-idUSBRE97I0NB20130819
funny how they aren't able to get the criminals to surrender their guns. must be because they are under 5 rounds, eh> But the powers that be have no problem taking them away from lawfulowners.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/california-gun-confiscation-bill_n_3117238.html

Therefore as a society, we are just as corrupt as they are.
Now, I'm going to go through another 8 page senseless post by you. You don't like my answers, too bad.

 

Why is it you fake conservatives assume everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal?

Why can't you answer simple questions?

Who exactly is they? Can you not speak in riddles?

Dude, you need to heed your own advice and do some real historical research.

I would suggest that the only handicap you should be worried about is your own reality impairment. The other suggestion I would make is to stop watching TV before your brain is fully rotted and unrepairable.

 

There is no provision within the Constitution that says Congress cannot pass a law only to turn around and immediately rescind it.

In fact, Arizona did something similar when they were getting statehood. Either Congress or the President didn't like a provision in the proposed state Constitution. So, the Arizonans removed the objectionable provision, acquired statehood, and then put the provision back in as an amendment after achieving statehood.

Because I am not going to let you slam Obama and Democrats for doing the exact same damn thing that Bush and the Republicans did. If you're going to deny that the Bush Administration and the Republican Party did the exact same thing, I see no reason to continue responding to your posts, because you will have shown yourself to be an irrational person who refuses to condemn people you support despite their doing something you claim to abhor.

I admit nothing of the sort. I said I am not a scholar of the subject, insofar as I have not undertaken a degree program in history. Saying that I do not label myself a scholar is not an admission for insufficiency in the subject.

So you deny the rise in the number of right-wing extremist groups?

The honest people in the world use objectivity in their thought processes, I am seeing nothing of the sort from you.

I did not say I wanted rights revoked, neither has the President. There is also no reduction of a right. Take for example Schenck v. United States. In that case, the clear and present danger doctrine was first enunciated in an opinion authored by heralded Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. If the First Amendment has rational limits, it is only logical that other rights would have similar limits. The most obvious right that would be applied to is the Second Amendment, since the bearing of arms has the potential to cause harm to others.

Socialism has not failed Europe in the sixty years they have been adopting socialist principles. In fact, European countries are much better off than the United States comparatively.

I am still waiting for proof of Obama acting without Congress in a way that is not delegated to him via the Constitution or by statute.

Don't condescend to me until you know the breadth of my knowledge. That I did not go to school for history does not mean that I am not already familiar with how the Nazis came to power.

Except Obama is in power already, your point is moot.

I know, Dubya can do no wrong in your eyes. I am not buying that, however. As long as you continue to harp on Obama's perceived shortfalls, I will continue to counter with those of his predecessor.

One cannot enforce a law justly if the mandated means of that law are not ready. The healthcare exchanges were not ready. Had the law been enforced, the President would have had a surefire reversal of the fines.

You were the one that said it. If you wish to deny it, go ahead, however, your words in previous posts speak for themselves.

The Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality of provisions of the ACA, you are not going to convince me, or anyone, that you know more than the nine Supreme Court Justices.

Nowhere within the Constitution is there a prohibition of providing firearms to anyone.

No President will be able to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, to think that is possible is yet another of your foolish statements.

I am not considering that Ammo Land link a reliable source.

The Reuters link points out that the firearms that were confiscated were illegal under state law and thus, were liable to seizure. The owners of those firearms are not lawful if they are in possession of firearms that are illegal under state law.

The Huffington Post article points out that the California confiscations were of firearms owned by convicted felons, which are precluded by federal law from owning firearms. The state also imposes restrictions on those with mental illness. We have seen numerous cases of people with mental illnesses that have used firearms to commit multiple murder.

Yeah, I agree. Though I blame people like you who are so blinded by partisanship that you can't see it's not just the one side.

You got it wrong, sport. I'm not the one being senseless.

 

Why do liberals start threads with asinine thread titles like this?

 

did you mean conservatives?

 

well, you can thank you many slurs and insult for this next action.....
Told you I don't grade badly written term papers Not even grade school levels.

 

I don't think you will see that proof, even though they make the claim every day. It's more wishful thinking rather than proof.