[lil weasel]

You don’t understand the implications of ‘boiling the frog.’
The Congress is the representatives of the people and the land, that’s what makes the U.S.of A. a Republic.
Supreme Court is to ensure the laws passed by Congress agree with the Constitution
When an Executive Order changes the law it is an infringement on Congress, if the law is written ‘wrong’ let the Supreme Court say so.
Flexing Power is dangerous to the public.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Monday, Jun 25 2012, 16:58)

Supreme Court is to ensure the laws passed by Congress agree with the Constitution

exactly.

which means that most aspects of law are open to interpretation (as is our own Constitution).
we need to debate law otherwise we're living in a dictatorship.

QUOTE

When an Executive Order changes the law

you can stop right there.
EO's don't fundamentally change the laws they address.
more than anything they are guidelines for how the president would like the officers and agencies involved to apply the law.

we've been using EO's and signing statements since the country was founded.
they're not anything new and they're not threatening.

[lil weasel]

Stop right there. Do you know what you're on about.
Do you know what the term "boiling the frog" refers to and how it's being applied to Executive Orders here?

[El_Diablo]

yeah dude, I f*ckin' get it.
you think we're slowly being led off the cliffs of insanity, incrementally being marched toward a world where the president becomes a dictator and seizes total power and chaos ensues. little by little we're going to move from democracy into some kind of Orwellian autocracy. and then one day we'll wake up, but it will be too late! and we'll all cry and yell "why oh why didn't we listen to Weasel??"

I just think you're wrong.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

he doesnt like the Fed because the Fed is an entity that has too much power over US money supply (which can be helpful at times, but in other times such as these it causes as SEVERE devaluation of the dollar, look at its value now compare to 10 years ago, or 20, or 30 and so on. its been dropping drastically over the last 99 years since the Fed was put in place.)

The Fed needs to have power over money supply. If it weren't for the fed controlling money we'd have recessions so often it'd make your head spin. Look at why we had panics in the 19th century; almost all of the times refer to lack of monetary control. Correlation does not imply causation; if we go by that logic, we could say "the dollar has decreased in value 99 years ago when Woodrow Wilson appointed William Jennings Bryan to the cabinet, therefore Jennings Bryan caused the decline in the dollar's value" --- it is simply stupid. The devaluing of currency is not inherently bad, though I am with those such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz who are currently calling for the fed to raise inflation targets from 2% to at least 3% (right now inflation is at 1.7) which would assuage the concerns of those worried about currency devaluation. The part of the Paul crowd that was saying inflation would have skyrocketed has at last shut up thankfully. The monetary supply was increased threefold and we have 1.7% inflation.

Weasel, please kindly shut up. If anyone "boiled the frog" with Executive Orders and signing statements it was Bush. Where were you, your frog, and your boiling saucepan then?

This post has been edited by Irviding on Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 00:46

[Garfield 2]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 00:42)

QUOTE he doesnt like the Fed because the Fed is an entity that has too much power over US money supply (which can be helpful at times, but in other times such as these it causes as SEVERE devaluation of the dollar, look at its value now compare to 10 years ago, or 20, or 30 and so on. its been dropping drastically over the last 99 years since the Fed was put in place.) The Fed needs to have power over money supply. If it weren't for the fed controlling money we'd have recessions so often it'd make your head spin. Look at why we had panics in the 19th century; almost all of the times refer to lack of monetary control. Correlation does not imply causation; if we go by that logic, we could say "the dollar has decreased in value 99 years ago when Woodrow Wilson appointed William Jennings Bryan to the cabinet, therefore Jennings Bryan caused the decline in the dollar's value" --- it is simply stupid. The devaluing of currency is not inherently bad, though I am with those such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz who are currently calling for the fed to raise inflation targets from 2% to at least 3% (right now inflation is at 1.7) which would assuage the concerns of those worried about currency devaluation. The part of the Paul crowd that was saying inflation would have skyrocketed has at last shut up thankfully. The monetary supply was increased threefold and we have 1.7% inflation. Weasel, please kindly shut up. If anyone "boiled the frog" with Executive Orders and signing statements it was Bush. Where were you, your frog, and your boiling saucepan then?

How would the States be in that position? It handled very well before the FED. JFK wanted to get rid of the FED, he was definitely one of the best presidents the United States had, and I think it's still better off to liquidate the FED.

[lil weasel]

Irviding, I toss back "your sayings" to you:
"How about you just shut the f*ck up [...]" I have my observed and perceived convictions.
"Your biases are not allowed [...]" here, we already know you have an unchangable Love of the Democratic Party leaders. They can do no wrong.

QUOTE (Irviding,)

The candidate I support is Obama for re-election. I am a registered democrat from one of the most liberal states in the nation. I go to school in DC/live in Northern Virginia.

To me "You just spew bullsh*t out of your ass over, and over, and over, and over, [...]" to the point that you seem to be GOD of the Forums, only your view counts.
"You all know a f*cking [lot, or think you do] about our country, our constitution, our politics, our system of government, our foreign policy, and about our economy compared to me." but, there are some things that aren't taught in University. Now, "you need to shut up and study [...] Roman, and German history so we can get on to repeating them.
This topic is about how Executive Orders will impact the U.S. How they have been and will be used to overpower Congress and maybe even the courts. "Don't talk out of your ass. If you don't know sh*t about [...]" how it can be used to subvert the Constitution.
It seems your "As thick as two short planks." { Aren’t long planks just as thick?}
No President should have the Power to overrule by Executive Order the Right to make law, He already has Veto powers.
All Presidents should execute the law as written, not adjust it to fit his current whim by Executive Order.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen [Albert Einstein]. and polished by experience in later years. [Me]
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. The only source of knowledge is experience.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 09:17)

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen [Albert Einstein]. and polished by experience in later years. [Me] If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. The only source of knowledge is experience.

Right.

Coming from someone whose claimed that the US nuked Afghanistan, amongst a whole raft of other quite insane and illogical statements, I struggle to buy this. Are you really claiming that the fact you ate older means you are wiser? Take a look at Slamman and then quantify that.

[lil weasel]

Nuking Afghans, where does that come from? I haven't eaten any either...
Prove what? I say what I say based on what I know or believe, which doesn't require proof nor anyone to believe what they don't want to believe. I present statements and relay what I've read or been told. I don't follow dogma religious or political.

And, I'm not all that interested in the zelous cry of, "I'll kill you if you don't believe as I do!", which seems so popular now. Anyone old enough to remember a previous National Slogan "The U.S. Right or Wrong!"

Those who want ignore the subtle happens will have to live with them. I don't expect to be around 10-15 years from now.
I and many others used to wonder how Hitler got the German Peoples to follow so 'easily'.
Now, after seeing Bush and his 'WMD' hustle it is clear. Too many thoughtless (wishful) sheep.
And, our current 'Blessed beautiful' Obama with his Chicago political background, I have reserves.

[Antinark]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 06:16)

Nuking Afghans, where does that come from? I haven't eaten any either... Prove what? I say what I say based on what I know or believe, which doesn't require proof nor anyone to believe what they don't want to believe. I present statements and relay what I've read or been told. I don't follow dogma religious or political. And, I'm not all that interested in the zelous cry of, "I'll kill you if you don't believe as I do!", which seems so popular now. Anyone old enough to remember a previous National Slogan "The U.S. Right or Wrong!" Those who want ignore the subtle happens will have to live with them. I don't expect to be around 10-15 years from now. I and many others used to wonder how Hitler got the German Peoples to follow so 'easily'. Now, after seeing Bush and his 'WMD' hustle it is clear. Too many thoughtless (wishful) sheep. And, our current 'Blessed beautiful' Obama with his Chicago political background, I have reserves.

So I shouldn't ignore the subtle hints that you're sounding more and more like Ted Kaczynski?

[lil weasel]

This Ted Kaczynski didn't like the extended use of Executive orders as a replacement/by pass for Congressional acts?

[Otter]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 02:16)

I [...] relay what I've read or been told. I don't follow dogma

...this is a pedantic thing to latch onto but it made me chuckle.

[Warpiggzz]

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Garfield 2 @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 01:40)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 00:42) QUOTE he doesnt like the Fed because the Fed is an entity that has too much power over US money supply (which can be helpful at times, but in other times such as these it causes as SEVERE devaluation of the dollar, look at its value now compare to 10 years ago, or 20, or 30 and so on. its been dropping drastically over the last 99 years since the Fed was put in place.) The Fed needs to have power over money supply. If it weren't for the fed controlling money we'd have recessions so often it'd make your head spin. Look at why we had panics in the 19th century; almost all of the times refer to lack of monetary control. Correlation does not imply causation; if we go by that logic, we could say "the dollar has decreased in value 99 years ago when Woodrow Wilson appointed William Jennings Bryan to the cabinet, therefore Jennings Bryan caused the decline in the dollar's value" --- it is simply stupid. The devaluing of currency is not inherently bad, though I am with those such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz who are currently calling for the fed to raise inflation targets from 2% to at least 3% (right now inflation is at 1.7) which would assuage the concerns of those worried about currency devaluation. The part of the Paul crowd that was saying inflation would have skyrocketed has at last shut up thankfully. The monetary supply was increased threefold and we have 1.7% inflation. Weasel, please kindly shut up. If anyone "boiled the frog" with Executive Orders and signing statements it was Bush. Where were you, your frog, and your boiling saucepan then? How would the States be in that position? It handled very well before the FED. JFK wanted to get rid of the FED, he was definitely one of the best presidents the United States had, and I think it's still better off to liquidate the FED.

That JFK and getting rid of the fed thing is a load of bull. It's a widely repeated conspiracy theory that has no merit. JFK actually just wanted to print smaller denominations of currency. The states be in what position? And no, it didn't handle very well before the fed. Anyone who tells you that is kidding themselves. Look up the panics of 1819, 1837, 1873, and 1907 (the panic that resulted in the creation of the fed). I'm sorry to sound elitist and rude, but those who think these things about the fed are those who have no education on economics whatsoever.

Weasel, you can take your boiling frog and stick it straight up your ass.

[lil weasel]

Irviding you can take your [economics] and stick it straight up your ass, Or better yet, get your nose out of the way so you can put it up your 'Blessed Pretty Boy's... . maybe he cares. Although I doubt it.

Maybe thouse Executive Orders will make better TP.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 11:16)

Nuking Afghans, where does that come from?

You posted this link from Uncyclopedia as evidence supporting an argument in [url=http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=503735]this thread, which (sardonically) claimed that the US had killed 190,000 people in a tactical nuclear strike in Afghanistan. You later deleted that part of your post, but luckily I quoted it for posterity. It's a reasonably effective demonstration of some of the absolute nonsense you post sometimes, and ergo a reason I don't tend to trust your opinions or judgements.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 11:16)

Prove what? I say what I say based on what I know or believe, which doesn't require proof nor anyone to believe what they don't want to believe. I present statements and relay what I've read or been told. I don't follow  dogma religious or political.

I don't recall ever asking your to prove anything, but in order to "know" something, you must be able to empirically prove it. You cannot know something which cannot be demonstrated to be true, because then it's a belief rather than knowledge. To "know" is to be aware through observation or inquiry, and in both these cases there must be something that causes you to "know" these things. Are you implying that I, or anyone else is following "dogma"? Because I find that very ironic.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 11:16)

And, I'm not all that interested in the zelous cry of, "I'll kill you if you don't believe as I do!", which seems so popular now.

I'm sorry, what on earth are you talking about?

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 11:16)

Those who want ignore the subtle happens will have to live with them.

So, exactly what intrinsic understanding gives you the ability to see these "subtle happens"? Exactly what skill of judgements or analysis of yours can be trusted, given that you seem to think a sardonic article claiming the US used tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan is a legitimate source of evidence for backing up a debate?

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 11:16)

I and many others used to wonder how Hitler got the German Peoples to follow so 'easily'.

It's not exactly a big mystery. A fanatical fan-base, scapegoating a minority group and extensive use of secret police and encouraging internal strife to unite the population around a common cause. It's basically dictator 101, and equally as applicable amongst any of the other Fascist, Communist or Nationalistic autocracies, military and police states that have existed before and since.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 11:16)

Too many thoughtless (wishful) sheep.

I'd phrase that as "too many ignorant, incompetent fools who think they know how the world works".

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 11:16)

I have reserves.

You mean "reservations", presumably?

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 20:13)

Irviding you can take your [economics] and stick it straight up your ass

Yeah, right.
As I've said before, strange troll. Offensive and rude one, too. For someone whose condemned the use of "ad hominem" attacks against him, I find this deeply ironic.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jun 26 2012, 14:13)

Irviding you can take your [economics] and stick it straight up your ass, Or better yet, get your nose out of the way so you can put it up your 'Blessed Pretty Boy's... . maybe he cares. Although I doubt it. Maybe thouse Executive Orders will make better TP.

So having any knowledge of the topic at hand should be disregarded? Instead, we should look to you, because since you are old, we can trust you for information. Is that essentially what you mean here?

[lil weasel]

sivispacem: What link? An edit? Without an Edit timestamp?
I don't see any 'edit' that could have removed a 'link'. The reference you purport requires signing in, I don't sign in to weird sites
What's wrong with commenting on Remote Control Murder.

Irviding: You sass us and when I parrot back your own words you can't take it?

QUOTE (Irviding @ Posted: Tuesday Jun 26 2012, 18:53)

Weasel, you can take your boiling frog and stick it straight up your ass.

Seems every time someone differs from your Exalted View you have a witty retort.
So I repeat back your own 'diss' and it's wrong of me. So true.
Regarding my use of the English Language, golly gee wiz, I guess I ain't no scholar.

TOPIC:
What's wrong with limiting the Executive Orders to NOT being used to write his own laws?

[El_Diablo]

your grammar gives me a headache.

[sonnyBlack]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Wednesday, Jun 27 2012, 01:22)

sivispacem: What link? An edit? Without an Edit timestamp? I don't see any 'edit' that could have removed a 'link'. The reference you purport requires signing in, I don't sign in to weird sites

What? He's referring to this post. See the edit? You even have in red text saying you removed the link, and then his quote of your post right below it shows the link you posted.

Anyway I think you're overly paranoid about what the president is doing. Maybe in the 60s and 70s you experimented with too many psychedelic drugs or something and the repercussions of that are finally coming to surface. It's the only explanation I can think of to explain some of your recent posts.