SuperJerk

So, in other words, NOTHING we're seeing so far seems like a rehash of the start of the Great Depression.

2 weeks later, and McCain won Missouri after all. McCain wins Missouri; State's streak over! Yeah, every 52 years, we get it wrong. So what? That’s a better prediction record than the rest of you 49 douchebag states.

McCain won Missouri after all. McCain wins Missouri; State's streak over! Yeah, every 52 years, we get it wrong. So what? That’s a better prediction record than the rest of you 49 douchebag states.

You know what's awesome? It is still November. There's still 2 months left for some even shittier legacy-killing catastrophes to occur.

Nightwing summed up my thoughts pretty nicely.

You're actually bitching about a blu-ray player costing $179? I bought one a year ago for almost $400, and considered THAT a bargain.

No, since 1952 presidents have been citing legislative precendents when issuing executive orders, which is the exact opposite of the point being made by you and Kotz.

Because Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock aren't Maverick and Iceman in Top Gun.

The greatest interview ever: http://www.newsweek.com/id/169176

The new contender for pinnacle of success in journalism: your own propaganda concert tour! Wait, even better....your own propaganda concert tour headlined by Hannah Montana's dad and that guy who illegally sold weapons to Iran back in the 80s! I think I know what's REALLY going on here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_el_ge/stevens I'm too lazy to think of a tacky series of tubes or Incredible Hulk reference to punctuate this news.

The fact that there hasn't been any actual annoucement about Hillary Clintn becoming Sec. of State, and the source is a bunch of anonymus leaks, makes me think it is less and less likely to happen. We do, however, supposedly have an Attorney General.

My belief was that, like most rumors, it probably had a kernel of truth to it, but blown way out of proportion. Like maybe she slipped up during a debate prep at said "country" instead of "continent," wasn't sure for a second if NAFTA included both Mexico and Canada, or just one or the other, or some other innocent mistakes like that. You might remember, I actually defended some of her answers about what a VP does.

Oddly enough, now *I* am the one who is worried.

Apparently the point of the big Obama/McCain Mega-Summit was to discuss football.

Fixed. That should make 909 happy, but it doesn't make Palin any smarter, nor does it change my original point. And if people are wondering why she's still getting under my skin, even though the election is over, I'd answer that by wondering why she's done more interviews and press conferences in the two weeks since the election than she did the entire time she was running. We hear more about her than we do the actual VP-elect, Joe Biden.

Maybe she meant Putin the person, and maybe she meant Putin as a euphemism. Or maybe she meant Russia's current president, Dmitry Medvedev. Maybe she meant the talking bat from the cartoon version of Anastasia. WHO FUCKING CARES? It is just one, of many, many examples of how ignorant she is. There are plenty more I could have used. You do realize that had someone not tried to argue with me that you might actually need to go through Russia to get from Moscow to Washington, D.C., the point would have been dropped after my first post, right? But I'm the retard because I assumed a woman who is famous for not knowing what she's talking about, didn't know what she was talking about?

Keep the insults coming. And when I respond, you can threaten to ban me again.

She's such a "good politician" that 59% of the public thinks she unqualified to be president, and she and inspires passion in people with innuendo that her opponent is a terrorist. Obama inspires us to believe in our country. Palin tears people down for not being "real" Americans. They are nothing alike.

Here's her quote. You really think she meant Putin, as in, the guy himself? If so, wow. And you didn't? Wow. Yes, I literally think she meant Vladimir Putin. Why? Because that's what she fucking said. "Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America." Putin isn't a euphemism for the Russian military, and she wasn't inventing a new metaphor.

Probably not. A lot of Europe to US flights go over the north pole (and some probably graze Alaskan airspace) because it's actually the shortest path. Remember the earth is more or less a sphere, so you have to think of flight paths relative to a globe as opposed to a flat map. But look at how far apart Washington D.C. and Alaska are. Keep in mind that the part of Russia where Moscow is, and the part of Russia that is near Alaska, are on opposite sides of a very large continent. You wouldn't go near Alaska to get to Washington D.C. from Moscow (even if you full over the North Pole to do it).

Oh, for fuck's sake... I disagree. Executive Orders have been in use since 1789 and are only supposed to be used to direct action within the executive branch, and limits on their use have been enacted by the Supreme Court. There have been some examples of executive orders that exceded the authority of the president, but since the 1952 case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer presidents have cited what laws (passed using the process you referred to) they are acting under when giving them. The use of executive orders by the future Obama Administration has been cited in the press as a counter-action to outgoing Bush Administration executive orders. There have been plenty of executive orders signed without legislative precedent (i.e. without "laws" to cite, as you put it) and/or ones that have been unconstitutional, including EO10340 which you mentioned with the 1952 case. How about EO6102, which made privately holding gold a crime? But, it might be too easy to simply pick on FDR's numerous unconstitutional executive orders. JFK issued EO10924 establishing the Peace Corps., which has been subsidized by the government. Richard Nixon's authorization of price controls in EO11615. Abraham Lincoln's April 19, 1861 Executive Order to blockade Southern ports who had seceded from the Union, whose secession he did not recognize. Abraham Lincoln's July 30, 1863 Executive "Order of Retaliation", which authorized an execution of a rebel soldier for every Union soldier executed. Many, many presidents use of the executive order to establish Indian reservations so they could forcibly relocate entire people groups. (I really don't like Lincoln, BTW. So I'll just stop here. Suffice to say, he issued quite a few really terrible executive orders, as well.) So there's plenty of examples of the executive branch creating law or otherwise bypassing procedure without any established reasoning, but through force. And, the alarming thing is that there has been a rapid rise of the use of these executive orders since Teddy Roosevelt started getting EO-happy. There are 10 things wrong with this post: 1. You switched from talking about legislative precendent to constitutionality. 2. After 5 seconds of research, I discovered that EO 11615 was based on Economic Stabilization Act of 1970...a law that was passed by Congress and signed by the president. 3. After 3 seconds, I discovered EO10924 cited the Mutual Security Act of 1954....a law that was passed by Congress and signed by the president. 4. April 19, 1861 happened before 1952. 5. July 30, 1863 happened before 1952. 6. Teddy Roosevelt was president before 1952. 7. FDR was president before 1952. 8. Indian removal happened before 1952. 9. The Oder of Retaliation actually said "for every soldier of the United States killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed" and "every one enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery, a rebel soldier shall be placed at hard labor on the public works and continued at such labor until the other shall be released and received the treatment due to a prisoner of war." 10. If I already point out that a executive orders made AFTER the one I citied from the 1952 case was over-ruled by the Supreme Court, what was the point of using it as an example of the "plenty of executive orders signed without legislative precedent"? Wasn't my point that the practice STARTED in 1952?

Just how the hell did we get HERE?

"78 in the pink and 39 in the stink."

I disagree. Executive Orders have been in use since 1789 and are only supposed to be used to direct action within the executive branch, and limits on their use have been enacted by the Supreme Court. There have been some examples of executive orders that exceded the authority of the president, but since the 1952 case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer presidents have cited what laws (passed using the process you referred to) they are acting under when giving them. The use of executive orders by the future Obama Administration has been cited in the press as a counter-action to outgoing Bush Administration executive orders.