Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | School Lunch Menus | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

No checks, no balances?

February 18, 2013

There was one very telling passage in President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address last Tuesday....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(32)

svensota

Feb-24-13 6:15 PM

Good night, my dear friend, MIT. Sweet dreams.

Sine die.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-24-13 12:35 PM

Okay, MIT, let's make a deal.

I won't be unnecessarily pugilistic, and you won't write arrogant, condescending, duplicitous, long-winded posts, some that equate President Obama with Hitler, as well as other paranoid right-wing pronouncements without substance.

Oh, and you also won't whine and preach. That would be good, too. Just remember, my new and dear friend: Mi aerodeslizadoresta lieno de anguilas.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-23-13 7:31 PM

MIT: Do you ever read your own posts?

Start there, fella.

Really. Read the third sentence of your first paragraph of your last post, stating with "Of course...".

Talk about arrogant, condescending and duplicitous.

This is your idea of respectfully disagreeing?

You phony bag of wind.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-23-13 5:49 PM

No, no, MIT. The fascists are on the far right, the Marxists are on the far left. At least get your definitions right.

I'm a liberal. You seem to have left "liberals" out of your blanket condemnation. I am not an atheist. I am not a Marxist. (There are about 12 left in the world, by the way.) And I'm no socialist, either.

I am a Christian. I am a businessman. I am a veteran. I even pay a bunch of taxes both personal and corporate. And, I'm as red-blooded an American as you could ever hope to be.

No one is trying to silence or harm you. Please continue to post whatever you want. But don't be surprised or get all sensitive when we don't buy into your..uh...ahem...narrow point of view.

Politics is a rough game. Play it if you can take it. If not, take up badminton or something that will make you happy.

But, if you think I'm going to back off, you should think again.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-21-13 9:12 PM

Deerhunt: I'm sure MIT finds it disagreeable when people don't swoon to his point of view, or when he gets skunked in an argument. I've learned that it's just best to let him have both barrels and move on. Some can take the heat and others pretend that they are above it all. It shouldn't take you too long to figure this out.

Just a word to the wise from someone far wiser than you. Or, so MIT would like you to think.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-21-13 6:40 PM

deerhunt, you are right, calling MIT a "right- wing dunderhead" was a little over the top.

Perhaps, I should have referred to him as "slightly misguided loyal opposition who think Obama is like Hitler".

I apologize.

I'm sure President Obama would feel the same way.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-21-13 6:33 PM

Ah-ha! Now I understand the logic of MIT-World:

REAGAN LIKE HITLER--both were superior speakers and both were superior communicators. So, yes, in this respect Reagan was like Hitler.

BUSH LIKE HITLER--both invaded countries on trumped-up charges, Hitler with Poland and "W" with his Iraq WMDs. So, yes, in this respect Bush was like Hitler.

NIXON LIKE HITLER--subverted the law and targeted his political enemies. So, yes, in this respect, Nixon was like Hitler.

GERALD FORD LIKE HITLER--neither could play golf. So, yes, in this respect, Ford was like Hitler.

Zooks! Almost every Republican president has been like Hitler!!!

MIT, you are a master at understanding the subtleties and nuances of politics. We are all so blessed that you prattle on, right here, on this site.

Keep up the outstanding thinking!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-21-13 6:19 PM

Sven - namecalling ????? I think your smarter than that.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-21-13 6:16 PM

Auntydem,I actually watch all stations, you have to to get a view from all aspects, even the main media outlets such as CBS and NBC complaign about this president not having the number of press conferences of past presidents where they are able to ask questions. He saves himself for Oprah and Leno where the questions are easier. I prefer to see the press challenge a president and make him explain things more in depth . To bring charges against the president would require the attorney general to do that ,no matter what administration ,highly unlikely.The other option is the House or Senate with enough votes trying to impeach,also highly unlikely. There is some challenge going on in court about recess appointments -not sure what the outcome will be.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Feb-21-13 6:06 PM

Strengthening a political base by building support among people who heretofore had paid little attention to politics, and who were therefore particularly susceptible to rhetoric - is actually a pretty good definition of what Republicans have done with the "grassroots" Tea Party. Not having been involved in politics or a party is how Tea Parties proudly define themselves.

Fox exists to build up the right among the less politically informed of our society - and keep them uninformed.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Feb-21-13 5:51 PM

If the executive orders signed by Obama in the last 4 years crossed some line no other president's executive orders ever have or violated the constitution why have no charges been brought; the investigative committee headed by Republicans done nothing? Why not compare executive orders right down the line president by president and cite the difference? Because there is none, perhaps?

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-21-13 4:52 PM

Thank you for making my point, MIT.

It took you two rambling posts and six paragraphs of back-peddling to respond to my brief opinion, the one that you so arrogantly tried to dismiss as having no substance.

Guess it did, now, didn't it.

And you have just exposed yourself for the right wing dunderhead that you are by buying into Sowell's comparison of Hitler with Obama.

What next, the Beatles being more popular than Jesus?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-21-13 12:50 PM

MIT: I know you'd like to make up the rules for everyone else, but it is your recommendation to read Sowell that has no substance.

Do you deny that Thomas Sowell compared President Obama to Adolf Hitler?

Here's the evidence: June 2010 editorial by Sowell in Investors Business Daily titled, "Is U.S. Now on Slippery Slope to Tyranny?"

Do you not think that this just might be something of note for our fellow readers to know about as you promote Sowell's gibberish, unchecked?

Or, do you think we should just accept your recommendations for further reading carte blanche because you are so all-knowing and your recommendations are beyond scrutiny?

I find joy in keeping your claptrap honest, bub.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Melius

Feb-21-13 10:42 AM

The number of presidential executive orders is relevant in this discussion because of the original editorial, "No checks, no balances?" If one is debating the constitutional theory of executive orders, the magnitude of the substance of each order is insignificant. A president either has the right or doesn't, according to your consitutional philosophy, or more importantly, US Constitutional policy.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-21-13 9:26 AM

I agree , they don't offer alternative solutions , instead poke fun of or defame the person.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-21-13 8:21 AM

Micheal T - unfortunately we seem to be in the minority in this country, will have too see how things play out in the future with liberals in charge . I may have to kick back and wait for somebody to take care of me intead of working 12 hours a day .

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-20-13 6:28 PM

Oh, sure, go ahead and read Thomas Sowell. Why not, the great thinker Sarah Palin endorses him. She was probably deeply moved by Sowell's comparison of President Obama to Adolf Hitler.

Fair and balanced.

My kxmglinkle.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Feb-20-13 2:31 PM

Listening to Levin… helps explain the confusing bounces between complete opposites - the hateful words of right wing radio and The Word.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-20-13 12:29 PM

Or.

If you want to read something other than hysterical right-wing blather, try "The Imperial Presidency", by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. He essentially coined the term with his book in 1973.

Schlesinger expresses the same concerns about the presidency running out of control but, of course, he's much more...ahem...fair and balanced because of his infallible liberal background.

Mark Levin?! Cheese and crackers, get the bucket.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-19-13 11:50 AM

Deerhunt: You're confusing one argument and making another.

The point was: The Imperial Presidency is no new thing. It is not an Obama thing. It was not a Nixon thing. It was not a Roosevelt thing. It goes back 150 years.

That is the point. Period.

Now, to your new point:

What Lincoln did had to be done as far as the North was concerned. The South had, and still has, a different point of view. I think slavery is about the worst institution on Earth and there is nothing that can excuse it or condone it.

The argument for or against secession was complex and not at all clear at the time. Jefferson Davis, after being jailed for two years, begged for a trial to argue the right of secession. The Union told him to go home to Biloxi and shut up. They knew the legalities were fragile and at that point, moot.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-19-13 11:28 AM

Svensota, so you were for the south succeeding from the union so they could keep slavery alive? I do not consider myself a Republican , just a person who is conservative-make the money before you spend it.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-19-13 11:16 AM

Excellent point, deerhunt. Let's stay focused on the big stuff.

For example...

"In the name of waging war, Republicans supported massive expansion of government power, instituting new policies ranging from a national banking system and income taxes to conscription and emancipation."*

Oh, and the chief executive almost singlehandedly started a war that killed 700,000 Americans.

Who? The first Imperial President, Abraham Lincoln, Republican.

*Source: "LINCOLN: The Decision for War, The Northern Response to Secession" by Russell McClintock, 2008, The University of North Carolina Press.

Well now, how 'bout them there tax 'n spend liberals?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Feb-19-13 6:55 AM

The number of executive orders are irrevelant, it depends what they are for,could be for something as minor as declaring a special holiday or extreme as appointing persons to a office without conressional approval, it's a slippery slope , careful of what you want to defend , someday it is the other side in power and than you will be complaining.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-18-13 8:43 PM

Imperial Presidency? Gosh, that has a familiar ring to it.

Oh, yes, Richard Nixon.

Let's see, was he a Republican?

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Melius

Feb-18-13 4:39 PM

Still amazes me how little research the Journal does for its editorials. As one commented, Obama's total of executive orders during his first term numbered 144. That's the fewest in modern history by a US President. GW Bush/Cheney issued 290 over two terms; Clinton hit 363 (two terms); Bush I signed 165 (one term); Sir Ronald Reagan 380 (two terms); etc. While the US Constitution is somewhat vague about the use of presidential executive orders, it has been a standard practice used by this nation's top executive. Is it the fact that Obama suggested executive order on climate change, a pet conspiracy claim by the conservative right, that has bothered the Journal editorialist?

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 32 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web