[0okeio0]

jetguyz, on 03 March 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

And Warren Buffet hypocrisy does not ends there...he is married and living with another woman. No wonder he wants to give his money to charity (albeit tax shelters) cos he must surely hate his family and don`t want them to have his money if he dies, I presume.

Don't use words you don't know.

Although tax shelters huh?!

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/albeit

Aiya. You bore me. Had enough of replying to rubbish.

[0okeio0]

jetguyz, on 03 March 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Just becos the article is from Glenn Black does not make his comments less credible.
Are you saying Michelle Obama did not initiated the "Let`s Move" program for kids`obesity and yet she has no qualms in spending taxpayers` money ordering and quaffing down expensive rich food lobster, caviars and champagne with 25 personal assistants to cater to her needs?

jetguyz, on 02 March 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

So. she is telling American families to cut down and save on rich food so that she have more taxpayers` money to feed her wanton appetite...izzit?

Tell me. How does the bold statement that you have made make any sense whatsoever? You said: when people cut down and save on rich food, she would have more taxpayers money.

So: (less tax paid) = (more tax revenue received) ?

HUH? See the flaw? Don't red herring me and everyone else on this forum.

jetguyz, on 03 March 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Your inability to analyze and separate the truth from your obvious biased perception of anything that is Republicans is indeed delusional.

Oh, so if anti-Obama supporters give credit to Obama policy, then it suits you to praise and quote from them, but if their comments are anti-Obama, then they only have "... half the ability to analyze"...izzit?

Puhleeze!...

Your inability to analyze and separate the truth from your obvious biased perception of anything Obama is indeed delusional.

If comments are anti-Obama (not criticism?), they have to be logical and not contain numerous fallacies. So should pro-Obama comments. Unfortunately, your statements are riddled with fallacies.

jetguyz, on 03 March 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

"Distinctly different writing styles"?
Puhleeze!
Constantly replying to "each other" to justify similar obsessive Anti-Conservative Republicans and religious organizations, similar behavior of using offensive uncalled for remarks to mask ignorant unsubstantiated postings, and the fact that your sole purpose of joining Trevvy is to post in this thread to boost your nick`s fragile ego, and not discounting the fact that since your nick appeared in this thread, the nick "One_of_us" suddenly turn into this "oh-so-polite" persona which is untypical of "him", with you taking his place as the obnoxious offensive delusional being.

Ya!...like I believe in fairies and aliens....duh!

Whatever pleases you. Really. Whatever pleases you.

jetguyz, on 03 March 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Quote you?
You who claimed you have not read the "rotten apple theory" from my previous posting and now desperately trying to take credit for it?
Tsk...tsk...

Definitely proven my theory that a rotten apple is a rotten apple regardless of whatever nicks you can come up with.

I have read the "theory" you mentioned it first. And yes, obviously I would never dare think of plagiarizing. But I was the one who first called it the "rotten apple theory". I claim the title of the "theory" but not the fallacy-filled substance.

jetguyz, on 03 March 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Understand what?
That you resort to imposing YOUR own moral relativism onto others?
Are you saying there is no right or wrong, there is no inappropriate or appropriate judgments for all things?

Then why do we need judges and the courts to tell us what is right or wrong?
Why do you need parents to instill in you moral and integrity from young? (perhaps your parents did not do that from the looks of it, or did they?)
Why do people believe in religion?

Trite. Mere platitudes. A cliche response to a mention of relativity.

Did I say moral relativism? Is "rotten apple" and "ugly faces" a moral issue?

Really? Judges and courts determine what is "right or wrong" in you? Laws have changed over the centuries. Did what is right and what is wrong change? If no, then why have laws changed? If yes, then, isn't it relative because what was right then is now wrong or what was wrong then is right now?

Why do people believe in religion... hmm. So to you, people believe in religion because they want to know what is right and what is wrong? Really? So its' structuralism that drove individuals towards religion in modern times?

Seriously. Read a book on the introduction to ethics before spilling the hysterics.

jetguyz, on 03 March 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Are you saying if certain cultures preaches abstinence, it is "not normal" just becos YOU believe in engaging in anonymous sex with strangers...izzit?
Or that certain cultures or religious organization prohibit gay sex, it is "not normal" becos you are a homosexual and anti-religious organizations, anti-conservatives...izzit?

So I ask you back...what is "normal" to you?
Is normal determined by social conditioning that you are brought up or live in?
Or is "normal" determined only by your own sets of beliefs and personal judgments?

Ah, my dear dear friend. You are not getting where I'm coming from.

jetguyz, on 27 February 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

True, but only a deluded mentality unstable person would believe a rotten apple could be "normal".
Unless of cos he has been fed rotten apple all his life and do not know what a "normal apple" tastes like..

I am saying, it is not fair to say that everyone would know what a "normal apple" taste like because we all have our own definition of "normal"; from different societies.

To you what is normal might be abnormal to me. What is normal to me might be abnormal to you. To say there is one fixed definition for normal is mere fallacy.

jetguyz, on 03 March 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Do you even understand what your posted article is about?
Here you are trying to justify Argumentum ad Populum and Bandwagon", when you are exhibiting the very behavior associated with it...by being politically correct becos you believe and expect how the majority of the people should behave?!

elementary my dear watson. The definition in the article states that you determine what is a fact or that you justify an argument because most or many other people think that it is true is a flaw in thought aka a fallacy.

jetguyz, on 26 February 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

And sure, different people have different views and perception of what is ugly, but if most people commented that you are ugly or have the face of a dog, then there must be truth in the FACT that you are actually really ugly and have an ugly mutt face.
No doubt about it.

See where your fallacy lies? You say: "if most people commented... then there must be truth in the fact..."

It has nothing to do with being tactful or using euphemisms. It has everything to do with thinking something is a "fact" or "truth" simply because most of the people think of it as the fact or truth as what you have said.

Another fallacy. I could skim through your arguments if you so desire and name out the fallacy for you. Would be fun. You could thank me later.

And I implore you. Don't red herring me. Don't twist and turn situations to suit your arguments; though misfitting.

[One_of_us]

It is becoming clear that any ROADBLOCKS TO OBAMA RE-ELECTION will need to be removed to be used instead to protect us Americans from a threat of devastation by the right-wing candidates.

Economists from all sides see the potential disaster coming, and those who are not prevented by their political affiliation to speak out, like Paul Krugman, are diligent warning us:

From http://www.chron.com...eld-3378106.php

Quote

Krugman: Fiscal phonies lead GOP field
By Paul Krugman
Updated 08:10 p.m., Friday, March 2, 2012

Mitt Romney is very concerned about budget deficits. Or at least that's what he says; he likes to warn that President Obama's deficits are leading us toward a "Greece-style collapse."

So why is Romney offering a budget proposal that would lead to much larger deficits than the corresponding proposal from the Obama administration?

Of course, Romney isn't alone in his hypocrisy. In fact, all four significant Republican presidential candidates still standing are fiscal phonies. They issue apocalyptic warnings about the dangers of government debt and, in the name of deficit reduction, demand savage cuts in programs that protect the middle class and the poor. But then they propose squandering all the money thereby saved - and much, much more - on tax cuts for the rich.

And nobody should be surprised. It has been obvious all along, to anyone paying attention, that the politicians shouting loudest about deficits are actually using deficit hysteria as a cover story for their real agenda, which is top-down class warfare. To put it in Romneyesque terms, it's all about finding an excuse to slash programs that help people who like to watch NASCAR events, even while lavishing tax cuts on people who like to own NASCAR teams.

OK, let's talk about the numbers. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently published an overview of the budget proposals of the four "major" Republican candidates and, in a separate report, examined the latest Obama budget. According to the committee's "intermediate debt scenario," the budget proposals of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney would all lead to much higher debt a decade from now than the proposals in the 2013 Obama budget. Ron Paul would do better, roughly matching Obama. But if you look at the details, it turns out that Paul is assuming trillions of dollars in unspecified and implausible spending cuts. So, in the end, he's really a spendthrift, too.

Is there any way to make the GOP proposals seem fiscally responsible? Not unless you believe in magic. Sure enough, voodoo economics is making a big comeback, with Romney, in particular, asserting that his tax cuts wouldn't actually explode the deficit because they would promote faster economic growth and this would raise revenue.

And you might find this plausible if you spent the past two decades sleeping in a cave somewhere. If you didn't, you probably remember that the same people now telling us what great things tax cuts would do for growth assured us that Bill Clinton's tax increase in 1993 would lead to economic disaster, while George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 would create vast prosperity. Somehow, neither of those predictions worked out.

So the Republicans screaming about the evils of deficits would not, in fact, reduce the deficit - and, in fact, would do the opposite. What, then, would their policies accomplish? The answer is that they would achieve a major redistribution of income away from working-class Americans toward the very, very rich.

Another nonpartisan group, the Tax Policy Center, has analyzed Romney's tax proposal. It found that, compared with current policy, the proposal would actually raise taxes on the poorest 20 percent of Americans, while imposing drastic cuts in programs like Medicaid that provide a safety net for the less fortunate. But the richest 1 percent would receive large tax cuts - and the richest 0.1 percent would do even better, with the average member of this elite group paying $1.1 million a year less in taxes than he or she would if the high-end Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire.

There's one more thing you should know about the Republican proposals: Not only are they fiscally irresponsible and tilted heavily against working Americans, they're also terrible policy for a nation suffering from a depressed economy in the short run even as it faces long-run budget problems.

Are you worried about a "Greek-style collapse"? Well, these plans would slash spending in the near term, emulating Europe's catastrophic austerity, even while locking in budget-busting tax cuts for the future.

The question now is whether someone offering this toxic combination of irresponsibility, class warfare and hypocrisy can actually be elected president.

[One_of_us]

SAS, on 03 March 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

----
The only one who has manupulated truths here are you. On more then one occasion your so called facts have come from sources that are acknowledged by the larger community as being biased or unreliable. As for your claim of threats and intimidation, you best justify such a claim.

Please make up your mind. First you tell me to go ahead as you have 'nothing to hide' then you accuse me of threatening to reveal 'personal information'. For that matter have I threatened to reveal 'personal information'? Evidence please. I do not know you in person, nor have we spoken face to face with such frequency that I have private information about you. What is this so called 'personal infomation' about you that I could have? All I have said, and I repeat it here, is "If such heresay must be considered truth, then much of the hearsay that has been told to me about you must also be true, especially since what I hear comes from trusted sources. Such being the case should I do the public a service by telling everyone the 'truth' by you? You can hardly object since it is the 'truth' is it not?"

If what I have heard is hearsay, then why are you so worried that you would accuse me of trying to'threaten and intimidate' [sic]? Unless of course you are implying that some of what I have been told as hearsay actually bears some truth? If so then I am actually obligated to warn the community about this. Much as you imply the right/obligation to warn the community about Obama.
-----

When a Moderator has to use strong wording trying to put in his place a poster filling threads with run-away lies and deceptions, and such individual IS STILL ALLOWED TO POST, it shows how far this site goes in allowing its members freedom of speech.

Although the posts of decent members are being deleted when we become too realistic in the description of such individual, we understand the need for civility.

But I believe everybody here is clever enough to figure out this kind of individual, so that if any 'personal information' about him comes to light nobody will be surprised but everybody will be ready for the truth.

[jetguyz]

0okeio0, on 02 March 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Arrogance isn't a pretty trait. And neither should it be "normal", as you should know x)

From Warren Buffett (he is rich): http://www.nytimes.c...super-rich.html

He wants to increase taxes on the rich and he is rich. So is he jealous... of himself?

Looks like you do not know...so what`s new?

As for Warren Buffet, as you said, he is rich, so what`s a little tax increase to him?
Penny drop in an ocean...duh!

FACT: The rich actually do pay more taxes.
(except Warren Buffet)
It is hypocrisy when Buffett’s famed company, Berkshire Hathaway, owes taxes (nearly US$1billion, no small change) that are nearly a decade old.”

So if Warren Buffet support Obama on taxing the rich, then how come he (and his companies) are finding ways to avoid paying taxes thru` his numerous tax shelters, including charities?

FACT is, Warren Buffet is volunteering the middle-class, not the millionaires or billionaires for tax increases since Obama's tax increase starts at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.
Obama ought to call them "thousand-aires," but that probably doesn't poll as well."

Warren Buffett's Tax Dodge

Warren Buffett: Obama Tax Shill

Obama tax lies, Jobs speech, Warren Buffett hypocrisy, Tax Policy Center 46 percent pay no federal income taxes

And Warren Buffet hypocrisy does not ends there...he is married and living with another woman. No wonder he wants to give his money to charity (albeit tax shelters) cos he must surely hate his family and don`t want them to have his money if he dies, I presume.

And don`t forget, Obama`s Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner and the ninth president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is an ex-tax cheat....so probably Obama would not include himself in the tax increase ...erm..with a little help from his Treasury Secretary, I suppose.?

[jetguyz]

0okeio0, on 02 March 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

1) An article from Glenn Beck? Really?
From daughter of former republican presidential candidate's daughter: http://www.mediaite....ke-me-a-victim/
He is beyond crazy. And validating his statements only make you, well, on par with who he is, well, with half the ability to analyze.

Just becos the article is from Glenn Black does not make his comments less credible.
Are you saying Michelle Obama did not initiated the "Let`s Move" program for kids`obesity and yet she has no qualms in spending taxpayers` money ordering and quaffing down expensive rich food lobster, caviars and champagne with 25 personal assistants to cater to her needs?

Your inability to analyze and separate the truth from your obvious biased perception of anything that is Republicans is indeed delusional.

0okeio0, on 02 March 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Secondly, her plan is to reduce childhood obesity. Even anti-obama Bill O'reily supports the plan. Please.

Oh, so if anti-Obama supporters give credit to Obama policy, then it suits you to praise and quote from them, but if their comments are anti-Obama, then they only have "... half the ability to analyze"...izzit?

Puhleeze!...

0okeio0, on 02 March 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

3)We can webchat if you wanna know that 0okeio0 and one_of_us are different people...silly you. And dude, we have distinctly different writing styles, it should be axiomatic.

"Distinctly different writing styles"?
Puhleeze!
Constantly replying to "each other" to justify similar obsessive Anti-Conservative Republicans and religious organizations, similar behavior of using offensive uncalled for remarks to mask ignorant unsubstantiated postings, and the fact that your sole purpose of joining Trevvy is to post in this thread to boost your nick`s fragile ego, and not discounting the fact that since your nick appeared in this thread, the nick "One_of_us" suddenly turn into this "oh-so-polite" persona which is untypical of "him", with you taking his place as the obnoxious offensive delusional being.

Ya!...like I believe in fairies and aliens....duh!

0okeio0, on 02 March 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

And, wait, so now, your absurd "rotten apple theory" (which I am so honoured you decided to quote me (x ) you are saying that its' non-binary in nature? That its' relative? What's with the flip-flop?

Naive. So naive.

Quote you?
You who claimed you have not read the "rotten apple theory" from my previous posting and now desperately trying to take credit for it?
Tsk...tsk...

Definitely proven my theory that a rotten apple is a rotten apple regardless of whatever nicks you can come up with.

0okeio0, on 02 March 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

http://www.gtsj.biz/...0Relativism.htm

Understand. Please. I implore you.

And "normal"? What's normal?

Is normal determined by social conditioning? Don't different cultures have different definitions on what defines norm; including methods of greetings, food... etc. So, are you saying that only one set of cultural traits are normal while the rest are well... "abnormal"? Do explain your contradictions and fallacies so that I can understand what you're really trying to say...

Understand what?
That you resort to imposing YOUR own moral relativism onto others?
Are you saying there is no right or wrong, there is no inappropriate or appropriate judgments for all things?

Then why do we need judges and the courts to tell us what is right or wrong?
Why do you need parents to instill in you moral and integrity from young? (perhaps your parents did not do that from the looks of it, or did they?)
Why do people believe in religion?

Are you saying if certain cultures preaches abstinence, it is "not normal" just becos YOU believe in engaging in anonymous sex with strangers...izzit?
Or that certain cultures or religious organization prohibit gay sex, it is "not normal" becos you are a homosexual and anti-religious organizations, anti-conservatives...izzit?

So I ask you back...what is "normal" to you?
Is normal determined by social conditioning that you are brought up or live in?
Or is "normal" determined only by your own sets of beliefs and personal judgments?

0okeio0, on 02 March 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Taken from: http://philosophy.la...ic/popular.html

Shifting the "you are ugly theory" to a "rotten apple theory" is nothing but a red herring.

Do you even understand what your posted article is about?
Here you are trying to justify Argumentum ad Populum and Bandwagon", when you are exhibiting the very behavior associated with it...by being politically correct becos you believe and expect how the majority of the people should behave?!

Puhleeze!
The fact about "you are ugly" and a "rotten apple" is a fact which does not need the majority to justify, other than the fact that I believe "you are ugly, thus you must be ugly for me to come to that conclusion", or that the "apple is rotten becos it is indeed rotten"....political correctness notwithstanding.

[SAS]

jetguyz, on 01 March 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

It is indeed pathetic to clutch at straws just to defend your inability to understand what was written.
Yep, I agree...hardly funny...

First of all, if there is a TRUE separation of powers, then each branches would NOT need to rely on the other to exercise their powers, and each branches would not need to adhere to the Constitution to "check and balance" the other branches...would they?

In other words, each branches then would clearly have no need for the other branches to justify or to carry out their own policies or require the signatory of the other branch to implement and enforce the laws that it introduced....do they?

Given that Congress makes the laws but yet requires the president`s signatures to legislate it, but the Supreme Court can strike it down anytime...so tell me, where is the separation of powers?

Fact is the 3 branches share equal powers so as to check and balance each other and no one branch`s power is separated from the other.....!!
The 3 branches could not function alone nor separated from each other, to run the democratic system as intended in the Constitution.

That`s why Obama regime is trying to bypass Congress, fill the Supreme Courts with his crony judges and bring America into a communist state of fear-mongering by oppressing and creating depression so that the people has no choice but to fully depend on the Govt Regime..whereby the Executive branch (the presidential dictator) has absolute power over Congress and Supreme Court.

If you choose to insist that this "theoretically separation of power is factual", as you have, then you have effectively chosen to acknowledge that they are unable to check each other, cos according to your (mis)-interpretation, "each branch has separate powers to do what they like. and do not have to answer to the other branches"...! *which is far from the truth).

So do you understand what you have said about "separation of powers"?



Define YOUR own interpretation of "separation of powers..then.
Are you saying that the 3 branches have "separate powers" and do not need to answer to the other 2 branches?

It is either you have misunderstood the doctrine of 'Seperation of Powers' and how it works as a check and balance system or you do understand and are choosing to deliberately misrepresent it or else you are really incapable of even grasping the simplest of concepts.

The seperation of powers works by seperating the functions of a power to each of the branches of the US government so as to serve as a check and balance to each other. The power to make a law is seperated for instance between the 3 branches. The Legistlative writes and passes a bill to create the Law. The Executive either signs the bill that creates the law or sends the bill back for further deliberation and the Judiciary ensure that the new law does not contravene the constitution.

Thus the Legistlative has the right to create a law where one didn't exist before, the Executive is the only one who can sign a bill into law and the Judiciary is the only one who can strike down a law as unconstitutional.

This the seperation of powers ensures that no one arm of the US government has absolute power. This is what the seperation of powers is. If you bothered to read check online you would have known that.

The 3 branches have their own seperate functions/powers. And they can only function within the limits of their functions. When they overstep that function the other 2 branches can and have the right to step in but only within the extent of their own functions/powers. However they cannot be prevented by the other 2 branches when they act within the scope of their powers/functions.

The Executive for example cannot declare a law as unconstitutional and stike down that law, that is the funtion of the Judiciary, the Judciary cannot create a law where one does not already exist as that is the function of the Legistlative and the Legistlative cannot sigh a bill into law or veto a bill as that is the function of the Executive.

In the same way the Executive and Judicary cannot prevent the Legistlative from tabling and passing bills, the Legistlative and Judiciary cannot prevent the Executive from vetoing bills and the Legistlative and Executive cannot prevent the Judiciary from strking down a law that is Unconstitutional.

The Seperation of powers is a very simple concept. I am appalled that you have not understood it all this while. But given what I have heard, I am not entirely too surprised.

Quote

Hello?
Selective reading again..I see.

Did you not read or hear about the case against Obama`s New Black Panther thugs?New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case
It even resulted in J. Christian Adams, who in May 2010 resigned from his post in the Department of Justice in protest over the Obama Administration's perceived mishandling of the case, and by his former supervisor Christopher Coates.

For you to say this is "hearsay" is indeed laughable and hardly funny if the obvious racism of the Obama Admin is not actually pathetic to begin with.

Oh I have heard of the case and it's hearsay claims that they belong to Obama. Until and unless you have factual evidence that Obama controls or funds these anti-semetic bigots, it remains hearsay that the NBPP are Obama's as you are so clearly claiming. 2nd you have also seemed to have ignored the fact that Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican, the vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, has been a vocal critic of the investigations over the Black Panther case. Infact when challenged on that position, she clarified that as she learned more about the Black Panther case, she became doubtful that it was as severe an example of voter intimidation as it first appeared to be, and was of the opinion that "the incident was not of sufficient importance to be the primary focus of our yearlong project."

Quote

"Trusted source"?
Puhleeze!

Do whatever you want, since I have nothing to hide.

Given that numerous Trevvy members have expressed their dislikes and aversion to your behavior as moderator, I would not put pass you to resort to threatening and intimidating me just becos you are unable to justify your manipulated truths to win an argument.

You can hardly object since it is the "truth", is it not?

The only one who has manupulated truths here are you. On more then one occasion your so called facts have come from sources that are acknowledged by the larger community as being biased or unreliable. As for your claim of threats and intimidation, you best justify such a claim.

Quote

SGBOY should take note that his moderator here have attempt to threaten and intimidate Trevvy member to reveal private info. about said member.

Please make up your mind. First you tell me to go ahead as you have 'nothing to hide' then you accuse me of threatening to reveal 'personal information'. For that matter have I threatened to reveal 'personal information'? Evidence please. I do not know you in person, nor have we spoken face to face with such frequency that I have private information about you. What is this so called 'personal infomation' about you that I could have? All I have said, and I repeat it here, is "If such heresay must be considered truth, then much of the hearsay that has been told to me about you must also be true, especially since what I hear comes from trusted sources. Such being the case should I do the public a service by telling everyone the 'truth' by you? You can hardly object since it is the 'truth' is it not?"

If what I have heard is hearsay, then why are you so worried that you would accuse me of trying to'threaten and intimidate' [sic]? Unless of course you are implying that some of what I have been told as hearsay actually bears some truth? If so then I am actually obligated to warn the community about this. Much as you imply the right/obligation to warn the community about Obama.

Quote

The investigation by Congressman Issa is on-going and whether he will petition for the Supreme Court to order Obama to unseal the evidences is up to him.

The Supreme Court could not just order Obama to do it without Congress request ....or legal case filed against the president.
So far Congress have yet to request the Supreme Court for that, and there is no legal case against the president to do that, altho` the murdered federal agent`s family members did file lawsuits against the DOJ.
There`s your example of "not-so-separation of power" of the 3 branches.


The US constitution Article 2 Section 3 Clause 4 is clear and precise, and your claims of the Senate stance is not relevant, nor is the section on the "commission all the officers of the United States"..

As you posted: "the laws that the president is to execute are the laws that Congress passes, and those laws constrain as well as empower the chief executive....",
Thus given that only Congress can make laws, then clearly Obama as president is required to ensure that those laws be "faithfully executed.
Do you have any idea what this means?

And yet, Obama did not faithfully execute the laws, instead he with-held and sealed crucial information and evidences in Congress investigations of crimes committed by DOJ in the Fast and Furious.

So tell me, are you just interpreting it as you wish?

Firtly it is not a claim of the Sentate stance. IT IS the Senate's stance and as such can be found on the US Sentate's webpage.

Next I did not say ""the laws that the president is to execute are the laws that Congress passes, and those laws constrain as well as empower the chief executive....""

I said, "...The law enforcement function has been a source of the president's control over the executive branch, however the laws that the president is to execute are the laws that Congress passes, and those laws constrain as well as empower the chief executive...."

There is a whole sentence and a part missing from your claim of what I said. You should have learnt by now that if you want to quote, you'd best not quote words where it can be shown that you have selectively chosen only a part of a whole to alter a meaning.

Next. You really should read the US constitution properly. The commissioning of officers is significant. Had you actually read the section you would have noticed that the actual Constituion is phrased as

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States"

If you would bother you would have known that not only is Section 3 written as a whole, it is not actually split in clauses. Now a point in note. Anyone reading the Article 2 Section 3 would have noticed that both ';' and ',' are used. This itself clues you into where the sentences are actually linked or as one. What is more the phrasing at the end is

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States"

not

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed; he shall Commission all the Officers of the United States"

You may want to insist that this is not significant, but where Constitutional Law is concerned, the phrasing and placement of punctuations are in this case quite significant. Had their founding fathers had intended the 2 to be seperated points, they would have used ';' and not ','. You can check this with any American Constitutional lawyer if you wish.

Had you bothered to read up on this, you would have found that the while the President is excected to take care that the laws be faitfully executed he does so through the commissioning of the 'Officers' of the United States.

[One_of_us]

0okeio0, on 03 March 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

to one_of_us:

http://www.cnbc.com/...Federal_Deficit

HAHA

Thank you, 0okeio0. You found that cynical republican who retorted Warren Buffet. Here is quoted part of your reference:

Quote

Warren Buffett Challenges GOP Senator Mitch McConnell to Help Reduce the Federal Deficit
Published: Wednesday, 11 Jan 2012
By: Alex Crippen

Last fall, after Buffett wrote his controversial op-ed calling for higher tax rates on the very rich ("Stop Coddling the Super-Rich"), McConnell suggested that if Buffett is "feeling guilty" about his tax rate he should "send in a check" to the Treasury.

That line had become very popular among Buffett's conservative critics.

In a Time Magazine interview posted on its web site, he has some fun with McConnell's suggestion.

"I thought of offering to match the total amount — if we go to a contribution system — I'll match the total contribution made by all Republican members of Congress, and I'll even go three for one with McConnell. (Laughs.)

Warren Buffet is a good role model. Not because of his money, but because of what he does with it and how he lives. Here is part of what he wrote in that article you referred us to earlier:

Quote

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

If there is someone who knows about investments it is Warren Buffett. We can fully trust what he says in that when you make money it is ABSOLUTELY STUPID to worry about the taxes you'll have to pay on your gains. As an investor I know this perfectly well. I just finished working on my taxes and I had to send a huge ($$$$$) payment to the IRS. Far from being depressed, after the bad moment of paying I am now happy of having made the income I did

And Buffett knows enough about economy to know that higher taxes DON'T create unemployment. The lying and deceiving republicans know this as well, but for some reason they are playing the anti-tax card in their politics. I hope this will fasten their demise

[0okeio0]

to one_of_us:

http://www.cnbc.com/...Federal_Deficit

HAHA

[One_of_us]

0okeio0, on 02 March 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

Arrogance isn't a pretty trait. And neither should it be "normal", as you should know x)

From Warren Buffett (he is rich): http://www.nytimes.c...super-rich.html

He wants to increase taxes on the rich and he is rich. So is he jealous... of himself?

Warren Buffett does little to please the right-wing conservatives. The other day when he was quoted as stating that the rich pay too little taxes, one of those cynical republicans retorted by saying that if he wanted to pay higher taxes HE should do so. He apparently is unaware that Buffett has pledged to give up 99% of his wealth to charity, and has started doing it, in particular to the Gates foundation.

[0okeio0]

jetguyz, on 02 March 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

An since you are inflicted with "wealth envy", then clearly you must be very poor...izzit?
Rich people don`t complain about others being rich...leh.

Perhaps your backwards mind has been working over-time..?

Arrogance isn't a pretty trait. And neither should it be "normal", as you should know x)

From Warren Buffett (he is rich): http://www.nytimes.c...super-rich.html

He wants to increase taxes on the rich and he is rich. So is he jealous... of himself?

[0okeio0]

jetguyz, on 02 March 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

As for Michelle Obama, (with 25 personal assistants) she is a hypocrite cos she initiate the program "Let`s Move" (Chef Move to School) to fight childhood obesity, yet on a skiing trip to Colorado with daughters Sasha and Malia, she "enjoyed a meal of ancho chili short ribs", not to mention her well-known gluttony crave for lobsters, caviars and champagne.
So. she is telling American families to cut down and save on rich food so that she have more taxpayers` money to feed her wanton appetite...izzit?

And she calls herself a liberal who cares for the people?

As for "nicer" to look at...hmmm....the theory of the "rotten apple comes to mind.
I am guessing you must be poor AND blind....

1) An article from Glenn Beck? Really?
From daughter of former republican presidential candidate's daughter: http://www.mediaite....ke-me-a-victim/
He is beyond crazy. And validating his statements only make you, well, on par with who he is, well, with half the ability to analyze.

2)*So. she is telling American families to cut down and save on rich food so that she have more taxpayers` money to feed her wanton appetite...izzit?*
Do you think this makes... really... any sense?

If American families were to cut down and save on "rich food" (I think you mean expensive food because rich food = rich in protein? Rich in antioxidants? Rich in fats?), wouldn't there be less revenue on taxes? Because, when people spend less, taxes would decrease. So... do you get that?

So how in the world would she get "more taxpayers money"?

Secondly, her plan is to reduce childhood obesity. Even anti-obama Bill O'reily supports the plan. Please.

3)We can webchat if you wanna know that 0okeio0 and one_of_us are different people...silly you. And dude, we have distinctly different writing styles, it should be axiomatic.

And, wait, so now, your absurd "rotten apple theory" (which I am so honoured you decided to quote me (x ) you are saying that its' non-binary in nature? That its' relative? What's with the flip-flop?

jetguyz, on 27 February 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

True, but only a deluded mentality unstable person would believe a rotten apple could be "normal".
Unless of cos he has been fed rotten apple all his life and do not know what a "normal apple" tastes like..

Naive. So naive.

http://www.gtsj.biz/...0Relativism.htm

Understand. Please. I implore you.

And "normal"? What's normal?

Is normal determined by social conditioning? Don't different cultures have different definitions on what defines norm; including methods of greetings, food... etc. So, are you saying that only one set of cultural traits are normal while the rest are well... "abnormal"? Do explain your contradictions and fallacies so that I can understand what you're really trying to say...

jetguyz, on 26 February 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

Let`s take the apple theory again.
If the apple is rotten, then it is a FACT (to me and most sensible intelligent people) that the apple is rotten.
It does not matter if you believe the apple is "not so rotten", becos it does not negate the FACT that the apple is actually rotten. (no matter how rotten it is)

And sure, different people have different views and perception of what is ugly, but if most people commented that you are ugly or have the face of a dog, then there must be truth in the FACT that you are actually really ugly and have an ugly mutt face.
No doubt about it.

Quote

Argumentum Ad Populum: "Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.

Taken from: http://philosophy.la...ic/popular.html

Shifting the "you are ugly theory" to a "rotten apple theory" is nothing but a red herring.

[jetguyz]

One_of_us, on 01 March 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

Not really. You lie and deceive here all the time, yet you are a poor devil.
The study results don't work backwards in that a liar has to be rich. This is only in your backwards mind.

Not really. You lie and deceive here all the time with crap offensive postings which you are unable to substantiate, and yet you remain a poor lying ignorant fool.

Since "the rich are liars and cheaters", (based on your obvious wealth envy) so the wealthy Democrats in Congress (and Obama) must be the biggest liars and cheaters... according to you...wor!!
I definitely would agree with you on this.....leh!
WAHAHAHHAAA!!!!

An since you are inflicted with "wealth envy", then clearly you must be very poor...izzit?
Rich people don`t complain about others being rich...leh.

Perhaps your backwards mind has been working over-time..?

Given the fact that you are a confirmed liar and deceiver here since the day you join Trevvy, then it does give credence to your self-confessed comment that "The study results don't work backwards in that a liar has to be rich."

One_of_us, on 01 March 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

I'm sure Nancy Reagan also ate lobster, caviar, drank champagne and what not! And she had plenty of personal assistants, including fortune tellers and mediums.

Sure Nancy Reagan also ate lobster and caviar and drank champagne...but then she is "high class", "rich" and Republican....wor!
FACT is; Nancy only had about 15 staff under her but not all at the same time. As for fortune tellers and mediums, they are likely the "temporary staffers" (among the 15) who are called when needed.

As for Michelle Obama, (with 25 personal assistants) she is a hypocrite cos she initiate the program "Let`s Move" (Chef Move to School) to fight childhood obesity, yet on a skiing trip to Colorado with daughters Sasha and Malia, she "enjoyed a meal of ancho chili short ribs", not to mention her well-known gluttony crave for lobsters, caviars and champagne.
So. she is telling American families to cut down and save on rich food so that she have more taxpayers` money to feed her wanton appetite...izzit?

And she calls herself a liberal who cares for the people?

One_of_us, on 01 March 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

But Michelle Obama is much more a down-to-earth person. And much nicer to look at than, say, Barbara Bush...

Ya, more "down to earth" becos of her weight...lor!
More down to earth that she need 25 personal assistants and yet they could not transform her into anything but a "fugly" drag queen wannabe......when a poor family in America could not even afford a nanny.

As for "nicer" to look at...hmmm....the theory of the "rotten apple comes to mind.
I am guessing you must be poor AND blind....

I am sure Trevvy members can judge for themselves...
Michelle Obama is fugly…someone had to say it (15 photos)

[One_of_us]

jetguyz, on 01 March 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Hmmm...
So Obama must be "rich" cos he lie and cheat the American taxpayers of US$5 trillion of deficit, claiming his plans will "stimulate the economy" when clearly it is all lies and deceit.

Not really. You lie and deceive here all the time, yet you are a poor devil. The study results don't work backwards in that a liar has to be rich. This is only in your backwards mind.

Quote

And Michelle Obama must believe she is "high class" when she command 24 personal assistants, quaffed down lobsters and caviars with champagne using taxpayers money...lor!

I'm sure Nancy Reagan also ate lobster, caviar, drank champagne and what not! And she had plenty of personal assistants, including fortune tellers and mediums.

But Michelle Obama is much more a down-to-earth person. And much nicer to look at than, say, Barbara Bush...

[jetguyz]

One_of_us, on 01 March 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

It is so infantile to question the separation of powers in the American government! However, this fits in the attitude of sneaky right-wingers who don't mind lying and deceiving to raise fake issues to exploit the credulous.

There is a recent study that confirms my estimation that the more "high class" people think of themselves, the more they feel entitled to lie and deceive. This is mentioned in the article:

http://articles.lati...-greed-20120228

Mitt Romney fits this model, like a majority of republicans do. This explains why they are so prone to lie and deceive. And the most religious ones are prone to fall for the story of the rich evangelists that preach that god approves of their richness because they (allegedly) love him.

But not only the rich lie and deceive. Here in these threads we see a pathetic case of a poor devil with a conservative psychosis that also makes him lie and deceive

Hmmm...
So Obama must be "rich" cos he lie and cheat the American taxpayers of US$5 trillion of deficit, claiming his plans will "stimulate the economy" when clearly it is all lies and deceit.
And Michelle Obama must believe she is "high class" when she command 24 personal assistants, quaffed down lobsters and caviars with champagne using taxpayers money...lor!

Actually Obama must be "terribly rich" cos he lie and deceive the American people about the Constitution requiring president of USA to be "natural born citizen" when clearly he would not have qualified cos his father is Kenyan, and a British subject at the time of his birth.
Not only that, he must be "filthy rich" cos there is no evidence or record that Barry Soetero had change his name to Barrack Hussein Obama....so who the hell is that "rich" deceitful black guy in the White House?
And where is Barry Soetero?

And here in this thread, the poor pathetic lying deceiver who is Obama`s clueless ardent supporters with liberal psychosis must be "disgustingly rich" and believing he is "so high class" cos apart from posting crap and bullshit, could not even muster enough intelligence to conduct a "conversation" without resorting to hurling offensive remarks to justify his uncouth upbringing.

And last but not the least:
Seven of the top ten wealthiest members in Congress are Democrats.!!!

So without doubt....Democrats are actually the biggest liars and cheaters....tsk..tsk...
And the best example would be the one in the White House...
And guess what>?

Wealthy Democrats tend to inherit their money. (relying on rich wives and daddies I guess).
Republicans tend to earn it.

Quote

Democrats In Congress Are Richer Than Republicans


Yes America, there is a wealth gap. Seven of the top ten wealthiest members in Congress are Democrats.

The results are based on a new study released today by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Center did an analysis of the financial statements filed by members of Congress for 2010 income and net worth.

This revelation of extreme wealth by Democratic politicians is completely contrary to the public image of the Democratic Party. President Obama has castigated “millionaires and billionaires,” suggesting they are evil people, largely Republican or conservative. The issue of the Democratic Party as the millionaire party has not yet made it into the mainstream media. But the facts are indisputable. Democratic members of Congress tend to be wealthier than their Republican counterparts.

According to the Center, 36 Senate Democrats and 30 Senate Republicans reported an average net worth in excess of $1 million in 2010. The median estimated net worth among members of the Senate Democrats was $2.58 million. Senate Republican median net work was $2.43 million.
And, the wealthy Democrats tend to inherit their money. Republicans tend to earn it.

Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) all came by their fortunes through marriage or inheritance. Senator Kerry, who was born into wealth, has listed his net worth as high as $281 million, while his wife Teresa is estimated to be worth $1 billion. Ms. Heinz did not earn her wealth either. She inherited the money from her husband Senator John Heinz, who died in an airplane crash.

Senator Rockefeller, representing dirt poor West Virginia, inherited his fortune from his family. He is reported to be worth $136 million.

While the economy continued to tank in 2010, Rep. Pelosi reported her own wealth to grow by 62%. Pelosi’s husband, Paul is a financier. They own a multi-million dollar vineyard and a number of million dollar homes. They have a net worth of $196 million.

Former Democrat Rep. Jane Harmon (D-CA), who in 2010 was listed as the third wealthiest Member of Congress was married to the late stereo magnate Sidney Harman of Harman-Karmen fame. Together they were worth $493 million.

Only Republican Rep. Michael McCaul (R-FL) married into major money. His net worth went from $12 million to $502 million in two years. The explanation? He married an heiress to the Clear Channel radio empire.

Among those who actually got their money by earning it, Republicans were in the slight majority. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a self-made millionaire earned his wealth by creating the Viper car security system. He is estimated to be worth more than $700 million. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) started as a rancher and attorney. His wealth is cited as $88 million.

Rep. Vernon Buchanan (R-FL), one of only three Republicans to make the top ten earned his money through real estate and car dealerships. He is estimated to be worth over $323 million.

Much has been made about Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) being the wealthiest Republican in the U.S. Senate. But he is ranked only number 14 because there are so many wealthier Democrats ahead of him. He doesn’t make the Top Ten. He worked as a construction superintendent. Then started his own company. Today he is worth $107 million.

Among Democrats who earned their income, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) first made his money as a mobile phone franchiser, later as a high tech venture capitalist in Northern Virginia just outside of Washington.

Warner is reported to have learned about the telecommunications industry while working for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT). Sen. Dodd decided not to run for re-election as he was under a cloud for taking a below-market mortgage from the CEO of now bankrupt Countrywide Financial.

For those who are keeping score, Dodd recently landed a sweet job as the head of the Motion Picture Association of America after he declined to run for re-election in 2008. The Hollywood Reporter says his annual salary will be pegged at $1.5 million.

Senator Jared Polis (D-CO), the Senate’s only openly gay member earned his fortune in the flower and greeting card business. He was the founder of Pro-Flower and an e-commerce greeting card company which he sold to Excite.com for more than $700 million.

New Jersey’s long time Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) rounds out the top ten. He originally was with a high tech company and is worth $116 million. New Jersey, considered one of the most corrupt states in the country, has had many home-grown Democratic gazillionaires for a long time.

Former Democratic Senator and New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine last week resigned as CEO of MF Global, a well established company he ran into the ground. As of last week federal investigators were trying to determine why the company is missing $900 million. It closed its doors last week and laid off more than 1,000 employees.

The issue of politics and money has been a complicated one. President Barack Obama brought in far more money from Wall Street in his 2008 campaign than his Republican opponent Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Obama raked in $1 million from Goldman Sachs employees that year. While his numbers are lower this year, the President has attracted $15.2 million from the financial services industry that he attacks so frequently.

Many Democrats run institutions on Wall Street. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J.P. Morgan has been a long-time Democratic supporter. So too has Goldman Sachs Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd C. Blankfein.

When will the mainstream media figure out that Democrats are part of a millionaire’s club too? Maybe someone should tell the Occupy Wall Street protesters, if they are still in their park.

[jetguyz]

SAS, on 29 February 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Oh yes... I agree that your explanation is laughable. It's so laughable that it is hardly funny, pathetic maybe... but hardly funny.

Firstly you said, and I quote

Your refusal to believe that there is a true seperation of power within the govering system of the 3 branches is in itself a refusal to admit that each branch has the ability to check the other branches. It is this through this seperation of powers within the US constitutional system that each branch has the power to check the another. If you choose to question this seperation of power, as you have, then you have effectively chosen not acknowledge that they are able to check each other.

It is indeed pathetic to clutch at straws just to defend your inability to understand what was written.
Yep, I agree...hardly funny...

First of all, if there is a TRUE separation of powers, then each branches would NOT need to rely on the other to exercise their powers, and each branches would not need to adhere to the Constitution to "check and balance" the other branches...would they?

In other words, each branches then would clearly have no need for the other branches to justify or to carry out their own policies or require the signatory of the other branch to implement and enforce the laws that it introduced....do they?

Given that Congress makes the laws but yet requires the president`s signatures to legislate it, but the Supreme Court can strike it down anytime...so tell me, where is the separation of powers?

Fact is the 3 branches share equal powers so as to check and balance each other and no one branch`s power is separated from the other.....!!
The 3 branches could not function alone nor separated from each other, to run the democratic system as intended in the Constitution.

That`s why Obama regime is trying to bypass Congress, fill the Supreme Courts with his crony judges and bring America into a communist state of fear-mongering by oppressing and creating depression so that the people has no choice but to fully depend on the Govt Regime..whereby the Executive branch (the presidential dictator) has absolute power over Congress and Supreme Court.

If you choose to insist that this "theoretically separation of power is factual", as you have, then you have effectively chosen to acknowledge that they are unable to check each other, cos according to your (mis)-interpretation, "each branch has separate powers to do what they like. and do not have to answer to the other branches"...! *which is far from the truth).

So do you understand what you have said about "separation of powers"?

SAS, on 29 February 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Further what I said does not contradict the US constitution. That you even suggest this is so implies a complete lack of understanding of the US constitution and how the seperation of powers function.

Define YOUR own interpretation of "separation of powers..then.
Are you saying that the 3 branches have "separate powers" and do not need to answer to the other 2 branches?

SAS, on 29 February 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

As I have already pointed out, and as you have acknowledged in an earlier post, Congress is a majority Republican even with a Demorcat majority in the Senate. Secondly, since you are clearly not aware, the Judiciary is currently majority Republican appointed.
Within the US Supreme Court, of the 9 supreme court judges, 5 were appointed by Republicans compared to 4 by Democrats.

Of the 179 seats in the 13 circuit courts of the Courts of Appeal, 86 were appointed by the Republicans and 77 by the Democrats with 16 seats vacant. It is an acknowledged fact that the Judiciary is Republican majority.

Thus we have a Democrat President, with a Republican majority Congress and a judiciary which has had more Republican appointments then it does Democrat.

Your so-called claim that Obama has a majority of his 'cronies' in the other 2 branches can hardly be anything but false.

That does not negate the fact that there are Republicans who are pro-Obama and there are Democrats who are anti-Obama...so what`s your point?

Are you saying that Republicans are ALL conservative right wingers and anti-Obama, and that Democrats are ALL liberal left wingers and supporters of Obama?

Are you saying Obama do not have cronies from the Republican party, or that ALL Democrats are Obama`s cronies?

SAS, on 29 February 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

As to your claim of intimidation, all you have shown so far is hearsay with barely any credible evidence to support them.

Hello?
Selective reading again..I see.

Did you not read or hear about the case against Obama`s New Black Panther thugs?New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case
It even resulted in J. Christian Adams, who in May 2010 resigned from his post in the Department of Justice in protest over the Obama Administration's perceived mishandling of the case, and by his former supervisor Christopher Coates.

For you to say this is "hearsay" is indeed laughable and hardly funny if the obvious racism of the Obama Admin is not actually pathetic to begin with.

SAS, on 29 February 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

If such heresay must be considered truth, then much of the hearsay that has been told to me about you must also be true, especially since what I hear comes from trusted sources. Such being the case should I do the public a service by telling everyone the 'truth' by you? You can hardly object since it is the 'truth' is it not?

"Trusted source"?
Puhleeze!

Do whatever you want, since I have nothing to hide.

Given that numerous Trevvy members have expressed their dislikes and aversion to your behavior as moderator, I would not put pass you to resort to threatening and intimidating me just becos you are unable to justify your manipulated truths to win an argument.

You can hardly object since it is the "truth", is it not?

SGBOY should take note that his moderator here have attempt to threaten and intimidate Trevvy member to reveal private info. about said member.

SAS, on 29 February 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

That aside, It is also a fact that the majority Republican appointed Supreme Court has not ordered the unsealing of the same records have they not? That is within their jurisdiction you know, or didn't you know that? Afterall if Obama did something that was unconstituional, it is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts to intervene.

The investigation by Congressman Issa is on-going and whether he will petition for the Supreme Court to order Obama to unseal the evidences is up to him.

The Supreme Court could not just order Obama to do it without Congress request ....or legal case filed against the president.
So far Congress have yet to request the Supreme Court for that, and there is no legal case against the president to do that, altho` the murdered federal agent`s family members did file lawsuits against the DOJ.
There`s your example of "not-so-separation of power" of the 3 branches.

SAS, on 29 February 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Finally you keep quoting the US constitution Article 2 Section 3 Clause 4 which by the way actually says "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States" and not just "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as you keep quoting.

But that aside. Do you have any idea what this means? Or are you just interpreting it as you wish? Never mind, let me quote you the US Senate's stance on this.

As you can see, the Senates is quite clear about this especially where they say that "those laws constrain as well as empower the chief executive". This statement is quite clear in that what the President carries out is within the restraints of the law is within the limits of his powers. Otherwise not only would he not have been able to carry it out, the courts would have been in the jurisdiction to strike down what he had done as unconstitutional as is the right of the Courts to do so

The US constitution Article 2 Section 3 Clause 4 is clear and precise, and your claims of the Senate stance is not relevant, nor is the section on the "commission all the officers of the United States"..

As you posted: "the laws that the president is to execute are the laws that Congress passes, and those laws constrain as well as empower the chief executive....",
Thus given that only Congress can make laws, then clearly Obama as president is required to ensure that those laws be "faithfully executed.
Do you have any idea what this means?

And yet, Obama did not faithfully execute the laws, instead he with-held and sealed crucial information and evidences in Congress investigations of crimes committed by DOJ in the Fast and Furious.

So tell me, are you just interpreting it as you wish?

[One_of_us]

It is so infantile to question the separation of powers in the American government! However, this fits in the attitude of sneaky right-wingers who don't mind lying and deceiving to raise fake issues to exploit the credulous.

There is a recent study that confirms my estimation that the more "high class" people think of themselves, the more they feel entitled to lie and deceive. This is mentioned in the article:

http://articles.lati...-greed-20120228

Quote

Wealthy, motivated by greed, are more likely to cheat, study finds
February 27, 2012|By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times

The rich really are different from the rest of us, scientists have found — they are more apt to commit unethical acts because they are more motivated by greed.

People driving expensive cars were more likely than other motorists to cut off drivers and pedestrians at a four-way-stop intersection in the San Francisco Bay Area, UC Berkeley researchers observed. Those findings led to a series of experiments that revealed that people of higher socioeconomic status were also more likely to cheat to win a prize, take candy from children and say they would pocket extra change handed to them in error rather than give it back.
-----

Mitt Romney fits this model, like a majority of republicans do. This explains why they are so prone to lie and deceive. And the most religious ones are prone to fall for the story of the rich evangelists that preach that god approves of their richness because they (allegedly) love him.

But not only the rich lie and deceive. Here in these threads we see a pathetic case of a poor devil with a conservative psychosis that also makes him lie and deceive

[SAS]

jetguyz, on 29 February 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

And since when did I "not acknowledge" that that "each branch has the ability to check the other branches"?

Again you choose to read and interpret what you want.
Perhaps you should refrain from making false accusation like what you always did just becos you refuse or unable to understand what was written.


That`s laughable.
Your second reason " implying that the other 2 branches had no authority to intervene in the first because it was not in their jurisdiction. " contradicts the Constitution`s checks and balances.

Just becos the other 2 branches did not or choose not to intervene does not make the unconstitutional actions of the Executive branch`s actions legal or within it`s right.

There are/might be several reasons why the other 2 branches did not intervene when one branch over-steps it`s authority.

In OBama`s case, It could range from having majority of the party members or his cronies in the other 2 branches, which condone the actions of the Executive branch, (Obama appointment of his "cronies" for the Supreme Court judges` positions).... or it could be that the Executive branch intentionally sealed crucial documents, preventing or thwarting investigation by Congress into the Executive branch, (as in the Fast and Furious case) ....or it could even be that the Executive branch blackmailed or threatened the other 2 branches` members if they intervene. (Obama`s Black Panthers thugs are infamous for violently threatening anti-Obama supporters while Obama`s DOJ support and drop all charges against them ).

Anything is possible in a corrupt regime...esp. fear-mongering by the dictator.

Oh yes... I agree that your explanation is laughable. It's so laughable that it is hardly funny, pathetic maybe... but hardly funny.

Firstly you said, and I quote

Quote

You should read the American Constitution again, if you believe there is true separation of powers within the governing system of the 3 branches.

Your refusal to believe that there is a true seperation of power within the govering system of the 3 branches is in itself a refusal to admit that each branch has the ability to check the other branches. It is this through this seperation of powers within the US constitutional system that each branch has the power to check the another. If you choose to question this seperation of power, as you have, then you have effectively chosen not acknowledge that they are able to check each other.

Further what I said does not contradict the US constitution. That you even suggest this is so implies a complete lack of understanding of the US constitution and how the seperation of powers function.

As I have already pointed out, and as you have acknowledged in an earlier post, Congress is a majority Republican even with a Demorcat majority in the Senate. Secondly, since you are clearly not aware, the Judiciary is currently majority Republican appointed.

Within the US Supreme Court, of the 9 supreme court judges, 5 were appointed by Republicans compared to 4 by Democrats.

Of the 179 seats in the 13 circuit courts of the Courts of Appeal, 86 were appointed by the Republicans and 77 by the Democrats with 16 seats vacant. It is an acknowledged fact that the Judiciary is Republican majority.

Thus we have a Democrat President, with a Republican majority Congress and a judiciary which has had more Republican appointments then it does Democrat.

Your so-called claim that Obama has a majority of his 'cronies' in the other 2 branches can hardly be anything but false.

As to your claim of intimidation, all you have shown so far is hearsay with barely any credible evidence to support them. If such heresay must be considered truth, then much of the hearsay that has been told to me about you must also be true, especially since what I hear comes from trusted sources. Such being the case should I do the public a service by telling everyone the 'truth' by you? You can hardly object since it is the 'truth' is it not?

That aside,

Quote

It is a FACT that Obama did sealed the records and documentation....is it not?

It is also a fact that the majority Republican appointed Supreme Court has not ordered the unsealing of the same records have they not? That is within their jurisdiction you know, or didn't you know that? Afterall if Obama did something that was unconstituional, it is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts to intervene.

Finally you keep quoting the US constitution Article 2 Section 3 Clause 4 which by the way actually says "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States" and not just "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as you keep quoting.

But that aside. Do you have any idea what this means? Or are you just interpreting it as you wish? Never mind, let me quote you the US Senate's stance on this.

Quote

...The law enforcement function has been a source of the president's control over the executive branch, however the laws that the president is to execute are the laws that Congress passes, and those laws constrain as well as empower the chief executive....

As you can see, the Senates is quite clear about this especially where they say that "those laws constrain as well as empower the chief executive". This statement is quite clear in that what the President carries out is within the restraints of the law is within the limits of his powers. Otherwise not only would he not have been able to carry it out, the courts would have been in the jurisdiction to strike down what he had done as unconstitutional as is the right of the Courts to do so

[jetguyz]

One_of_us, on 29 February 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

The videos you posted showing some cases of people blindly choosing Obama over McCain are really comical. But those ignorants are VOTERS. Remember this: THEY ARE VOTERS.

EXACTLY!
They are the clueless ignorant voters which Obama desperately seek, just like those illegal immigrants whom Obama (as president of the USA) defy the migration laws of the country (which he is supposed to enforce) and give them amnesty so that he could "buy" their votes...duh!

One_of_us, on 29 February 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Ignorant or not, if in 2008 they preferred Obama over McCain, who at least had some traces of integrity, even more will they prefer Obama over a false, hypocrite Romney and a babbling sanctimonious Santorum.

I am sure those ignorant pro-Obama supporters would like to believe that Obama is not the "false, hypocrite, and babbling sanctimonious president" even after he has proven himself to be exactly that, in over 3 years as president.
==============

[jetguyz]

One_of_us, on 28 February 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

"Evidences have proven", hahaha. Never mind Obama, all your "evidences" here have proven about you that what I cannot print here because moderators don't like it.

You are saying that the act of sealing those records is "lying", and it violates the Constitution? How come? Or you have your English verbs mixed up?

Hello?
And you have the audacity to quote the Constitution?
Article 2 of Presidential Responsibility, in the Constitution "Clause 4", Obama as President is supposed to :
Caring for the faithful execution of the law"...and yet he deceive and lied and sealed the records of the Fast and Furious" documents preventing Congress from upholding the laws in it`s investigation of the DOJ and the Executive branch`s involvement in the crime....duh!

It is a FACT that Obama did sealed the records and documentation....is it not?

So are you so clueless and blind as not to read the news?

Never mind the Constitution,, all your "lies and your rubbish and nonsense" here have proven about you that what I cannot print here because moderators don't like it.....