Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TheSanDiegan

The Nuthugger Redemption Thread

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, OrediggerPoke said:

Different Presidents may have used it for different reasons.  But there is no reason that it is ok to use for legislative purposes.  The power grab continues a drift toward dictatorship rule.  The founders would be appalled. 

I am gonna disagree with you a bit here. The EO isn't bad on its own. It is how the president communicates how to administer the vast bureaucracy. It's a symptom in that Congress has more or less abdicated responsibility of day to day governing and of the imperial presidency. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Checks and balances, my friend. If an EO (or legislation, for that matter) is unconstitutional, it will get challenged in the courts.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with United States v. Midwest Oil Co.   It is perhaps my least favorite case (other than some pre-civil rights cases that have fortunately been overturned).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OrediggerPoke said:

Different Presidents may have used it for different reasons.  But there is no reason that it is ok to use for legislative purposes.  The power grab continues a drift toward dictatorship rule.  The founders would be appalled. 

Interesting, you seem to place the blame for excessive use of the EO on the executive branch.

I believe the blame, at least most of it, should go to the legislative branch.

A president only has 4 years to try and accomplish what the majority of the American people put them in the White House to do. If no meaningful bills are coming their way because partisanship won't allow compromise, regardless of a President's willingness to support a negotiated bill, I can fully understand why they often turn to the EO. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Interesting, you seem to place the blame for excessive use of the EO on the executive branch.

I believe the blame, at least most of it, should go to the legislative branch.

A president only has 4 years to try and accomplish what the majority of the American people put them in the White House to do. If no meaningful bills are coming their way because partisanship won't allow compromise, regardless of a President's willingness to support a negotiated bill, I can fully understand why they often turn to the EO. :shrug:

So the job of the executive is to legislate when their is a perceived lack of legislation from Congress (or perhaps the executive doesn't like Congress' legislation)?  Some like dictators.  I'm not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, OrediggerPoke said:

Apparently you are unfamiliar with United States v. Midwest Oil Co.   It is perhaps my least favorite case (other than some pre-civil rights cases that have fortunately been overturned).

Oh, I'm on your side in principle (see: liking your post).

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OrediggerPoke said:

So the job of the executive is to legislate when their is a perceived lack of legislation from Congress (or perhaps the executive doesn't like Congress' legislation)?  Some like dictators.  I'm not one of them.

Lack of legislation, yes. It can then be challenged in the courts (keep you guys busy).

If they just don't like the legislation, they can use their veto power. Is using the power of veto being a "dictator".

Can dictators rulings be challenged in the courts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NevadaFan said:

Ok. How did this affect you? Don’t tell me what the government will or won’t do for me. Because I just told you I can’t think of a damn thing that’s changed in my world. Other than I’ve been fortunate and appreciate of our country.

What did the federal gov do to you SPECIFICALLY to make you preach this perspective?

What are you talking about? Are you crazy?

You must live a privileged life to have not been impacted by these things.

I've had to endure the crap TSA thanks to the Patriot Act. I've had to pay higher for health care thanks to the Affordable Care Act. My brother was deployed and in danger due to the wars. My son's generation and his children's generation will have to sort out the massive debt.

How HAVEN'T you been impacted? Are you not a citizen of this country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, sactowndog said:

What are those barriers.   Patents?    Are you proposing anyone can make any unproven claim regarding treatment efficacy.  What libertarian dream land do you live in?  We have just seen how easy large groups of people can be misled.  

I think when facing a vertical demand curve suppliers naturally move to a monopoly.  There is no bad price to acquire your competitors because when facing a vertical demand curve any cost can be recovered. 

You see it in Northern CA where Sutter went on a massive acquisition spree.   

Licensing, approvals of drugs, conforming to regulations that only large industries can abide, and so forth.

Realistically, if you have an idea that will revolutionize health care you would have no choice but to partner with an established player in the market, or sell them your idea. There is no competition, there is no free market in our health care sector. With these barriers our government places on entering the market, they absolutely encourage monopolies.

A libertarian approach would be to remove most of these barriers and protections for the established players, and allow new competitors to enter the market, thereby driving prices down.

Government makes things more expensive. It's like what Jo Jorgensen said about lasik. It's cheap right now because it's considered an elective procedure and Medicare doesn't cover it. Therefore lasik providers compete for your dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CV147 said:

Licensing, approvals of drugs, conforming to regulations that only large industries can abide, and so forth.

Realistically, if you have an idea that will revolutionize health care you would have no choice but to partner with an established player in the market, or sell them your idea. There is no competition, there is no free market in our health care sector. With these barriers our government places on entering the market, they absolutely encourage monopolies.

A libertarian approach would be to remove most of these barriers and protections for the established players, and allow new competitors to enter the market, thereby driving prices down.

Government makes things more expensive. It's like what Jo Jorgensen said about lasik. It's cheap right now because it's considered an elective procedure and Medicare doesn't cover it. Therefore lasik providers compete for your dollars.

It’s cheaper because it’s not an essential good.   The demand curve for LASIK is not nearly vertical.   By the way to further my point look at the prices of comparable procedures in Animal Health and human health.  Both have regulation but one is a true market and one is not.  

So answer my question.  You would really prefer a completely unregulated market where companies could make any claim regardless of its truth or actual safety?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, madmartigan said:

@happycamperalready dropped the F-Bomb on @NorCalCoug. This thread is achieving nothing so I will bow out. 

Happy's getting a little intense, but NorCal has been saying anyone and everyone who said Trump was dangerous as president had TDS. He's been a Richard about it for four years. I don't recall a lot of people on here actually and honestly saying that it's likely Trump would start a nuclear war. Maybe a few, but not nearly the number of people he dismissed as crazy. However, a whole bunch of people said Trump's incompetence, disinterest in governing, conspiratorial and violent rhetoric, narcissistic tendencies, penchant for big lies about important facts, and disdain for our cherished institutions were dangerous things in a president. And we were told over and over that Trump was a harmless moderate, and we had TDS. 

In the last months of his presidency, Trump denied he won the election, claimed fraud to undermine trust in democracy and called for his supporters to fight for him and called people in the government who didn't fight for him traitors. That directly lead to an assault on congress. Also, while he focusing all of his energy as the chief executive of the country on those priorities, he completely ignored what would have been the single most important task of his presiency - a smooth and coordinated rollout of the vaccines he seemed to care so much about until it didn't get him re-elected. 

That someone who denied Trump was a legitimate danger in the Oval Office for years is now doing a touchdown dance and claiming vindication over the people who suggested this fact is a little... odd. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Happy's getting a little intense, but NorCal has been saying anyone and everyone who said Trump was dangerous as president had TDS. He's been a Richard about it for four years. I don't recall a lot of people on here actually and honestly saying that it's likely Trump would start a nuclear war. Maybe a few, but not nearly the number of people he dismissed as crazy. However, a whole bunch of people said Trump's incompetence, disinterest in governing, conspiratorial and violent rhetoric, narcissistic tendencies, penchant for big lies about important facts, and disdain for our cherished institutions were dangerous things in a president. And we were told over and over that Trump was a harmless moderate, and we had TDS. 

In the last months of his presidency, Trump denied he won the election, claimed fraud to undermine trust in democracy and called for his supporters to fight for him and called people in the government who didn't fight for him traitors. That directly lead to an assault on congress. Also, while he focusing all of his energy as the chief executive of the country on those priorities, he completely ignored what would have been the single most important task of his presiency - a smooth and coordinated rollout of the vaccines he seemed to care so much about until it didn't get him re-elected. 

That someone who denied Trump was a legitimate danger in the Oval Office for years is now doing a touchdown dance and claiming vindication over the people who suggested this fact is a little... odd. 

Do you believe @NorCalCougis a fascist however? I sure as hell don’t. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

This was one rogue doctor. Not exactly a systematic policy across a government agency. Deportations for those alleging abuse were frozen as well once the allegations came to light. To say INS as an agency performed mass sterilizations or that they were authorized by Trump by what we know now is +++++ing bullshit.

Its reasonable to argue that individual actions in a prison by prison guards or staff are systematic by their very nature. Since a prison is a system wherein those individuals are given ultimate power over the bodies and actions of the inmates. The fact that they stopped some of the deportations after it became public ins't evidence that those deportations weren't part of a systematic problem.

I absolutely believe that Stephen Miller either knew about these actions or approved of them after learning about them. That guy's pure evil. Trump probably didn't know or care either way. He just put Miller in the position to be able to orchestrate all of the abuses that happened (remember the rapes, too?) in INS detentions centers. So he's ultimately to blame there, too. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Do you believe @NorCalCougis a fascist however? I sure as hell don’t. 

No, but I don't feel particularly bad for him. I believe Happy called me Fasc adjacent not that long ago. I may be misremembering that, but dude's throwing it around pretty indiscriminately at the moment, so people shouldn't take it personally.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

No, but I don't feel particularly bad for him. I believe Happy called me Fasc adjacent not that long ago. I may be misremembering that, but dude's throwing it around pretty indiscriminately at the moment, so people shouldn't take it personally.

@NorCalCougand I don’t see eye to eye on everything either but I’m not about to call him a fascist. That’s my point. And you’re right about happy calling you a fascist, I remember that thread. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

No, but I don't feel particularly bad for him. I believe Happy called me Fasc adjacent not that long ago. I may be misremembering that, but dude's throwing it around pretty indiscriminately at the moment, so people shouldn't take it personally.

that was lawlor. I told him that his law and order rhetoric is the same kind of stuff that leads nations to be swept up in to fascism. 

By all means, take it personally enough to reflect. Fascism is being thrown around pretty indiscriminately. The core demographic of MWCboard is exactly the demographic that has supported and enabled the rise of fascism in Italy, in Germany, in Spain. The comfortable middle class just wants stability and to go back to the way things were and then just doesn't ask uncomfortable questions about why drag queen story hour is gone, or where did the drag queen go, or just why exactly there aren't any more protests in Portland. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

@NorCalCougand I don’t see eye to eye on everything either but I’m not about to call him a fascist. That’s my point. And you’re right about happy calling you a fascist, I remember that thread. 

the dude called hearing about how Trump is a danger as worse than Trump trying to overthrow the government. 

sometimes you just have to believe what people are telling you about themselves

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BSUTOP25 said:

@NorCalCougand I don’t see eye to eye on everything either but I’m not about to call him a fascist. That’s my point. And you’re right about happy calling you a fascist, I remember that thread. 

I'm not a fan of using the word even now, but I'm sure I've called people worst one time or another. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...