PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Before I decide which people I want to vote for me? I've got family up in Western Washington and it's always been a place that I've considered moving. I'm only thinking about running now, there's little I can do for the foreseeable future. I figure I spend all this time talking politics and policy and everything (outside of the forum), why not actually try to make a difference? Dude, you're 17. Pretty much no one ends up where they envisioned ending up when they were 17. Like, when I was that age my big plan was to go to Journalism School and to get a job writing for The New Yorker. Four years later, my greatest aspiration is to one day get a job teaching English at a mid-level university and get some shit published in journals that like 73 people read. Things change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Israeli Mixed Wrestling Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Yeah, I'm in the one collapsing dying star of an industry I said I would never ever ever be in. Once, I thought I was gonna be an architect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Get Paid to Travel Become a Freelance Travel Writer - A Free Quick-Start Guide www.TheTravelWritersLife.com/qstart Freelance $450/Story? Yes Blogs $12-$50 - Articles $25-$45 Freelance Writing - Instant Access www.freelancehomewriters.com Self-Publish Your Poetry See your book's vision come to life in print through BookSurge. www.BookSurge.com Writing published See Your Book in Print and for Sale on Amazon.com- No Setup Costs. www.CreateSpace.com Google mocks my failed dreams Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
At Home 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 You're not telling me anything I don't already know. Why are you guys trying to dissuade me from going into politics? I haven't laid out anything that could be considered a future plan, the only thing that I've said is that I want to run for public office sometime in the future. Sucks that you guys had to cut your dreams short, but really now, give the cynicism a rest. It's too late in the year to improve your standings in PotY. If the only thing you want to say to this is "you're young, things change," you're preaching to the choir. I'm going to finish college, of course, but this isn't something that I just woke up with one day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Get Paid to Travel Become a Freelance Travel Writer - A Free Quick-Start Guide www.TheTravelWritersLife.com/qstart Freelance $450/Story? Yes Blogs $12-$50 - Articles $25-$45 Freelance Writing - Instant Access www.freelancehomewriters.com Self-Publish Your Poetry See your book's vision come to life in print through BookSurge. www.BookSurge.com Writing published See Your Book in Print and for Sale on Amazon.com- No Setup Costs. www.CreateSpace.com Google mocks my failed dreams Eh, writing is worthless as a profession. Unless you're planning to become a novelist, which you probably are since you're the most urbane dude here and you read a lot of books. But a degree in professional writing? That's bullshit and it won't get you anywhere. Well, scratch that. Won't get ME anywhere. I suppose going through the rigors of higher education will give you the benefit of more knowledge. But that piece of paper won't take you anywhere. (Yeah, I know you wanted to go to grad school. But just graduating once should mean something, shouldn't it? More and more I'm feeling like my bachelor's degree is worth about as much as passing middle school.) I'm a college graduate and my parents want me to take a job at a fucking gas station so I can pay my car insurance. Don't they know my friends are going to laugh at me? Byron the Bulb, are you black? Czech thought you were and I was like "no way, that dude's totally white." Maybe in his world, refined Caucasoids can't appreciate Weezy F. Baby, but I know what's up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 You're not telling me anything I don't already know. Why are you guys trying to dissuade me from going into politics? I haven't laid out anything that could be considered a future plan, the only thing that I've said is that I want to run for public office sometime in the future. Sucks that you guys had to cut your dreams short, but really now, give the cynicism a rest. It's too late in the year to improve your standings in PotY. If the only thing you want to say to this is "you're young, things change," you're preaching to the choir. I'm going to finish college, of course, but this isn't something that I just woke up with one day. Probably should cut that Hanson hair before you declare your candidacy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Apparently Sen. Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate for Secretary of State. While I've made no secret that I'm not a big Hillary fan, I think you could make worse choices. She has the connections and experience to be effective in that role, certainly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Israeli Mixed Wrestling Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Empty out that Senate. Thing'll have more appointments than a Blackberry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Don't listen to them, pbone. Reach for the sky. Grab a comet and kiss the moon! Kiss it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
panthermatt7 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Get Paid to Travel Become a Freelance Travel Writer - A Free Quick-Start Guide www.TheTravelWritersLife.com/qstart Freelance $450/Story? Yes Blogs $12-$50 - Articles $25-$45 Freelance Writing - Instant Access www.freelancehomewriters.com Self-Publish Your Poetry See your book's vision come to life in print through BookSurge. www.BookSurge.com Writing published See Your Book in Print and for Sale on Amazon.com- No Setup Costs. www.CreateSpace.com Google mocks my failed dreams Eh, writing is worthless as a profession. Unless you're planning to become a novelist, which you probably are since you're the most urbane dude here and you read a lot of books. But a degree in professional writing? That's bullshit and it won't get you anywhere. Well, scratch that. Won't get ME anywhere. I suppose going through the rigors of higher education will give you the benefit of more knowledge. But that piece of paper won't take you anywhere. (Yeah, I know you wanted to go to grad school. But just graduating once should mean something, shouldn't it? More and more I'm feeling like my bachelor's degree is worth about as much as passing middle school.) I'm a college graduate and my parents want me to take a job at a fucking gas station so I can pay my car insurance. Don't they know my friends are going to laugh at me? Byron the Bulb, are you black? Czech thought you were and I was like "no way, that dude's totally white." Maybe in his world, refined Caucasoids can't appreciate Weezy F. Baby, but I know what's up. Man, I have a degree in music. That's far more worthless than a journalism degree. And I'm also working in a dying star of an industry (retirement investments). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Byron the Bulb, are you black? Sadly, no Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
At Home 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 You're not telling me anything I don't already know. Why are you guys trying to dissuade me from going into politics? I haven't laid out anything that could be considered a future plan, the only thing that I've said is that I want to run for public office sometime in the future. Sucks that you guys had to cut your dreams short, but really now, give the cynicism a rest. It's too late in the year to improve your standings in PotY. If the only thing you want to say to this is "you're young, things change," you're preaching to the choir. I'm going to finish college, of course, but this isn't something that I just woke up with one day. Probably should cut that Hanson hair before you declare your candidacy. Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 I think one of the FCC comissioners has a Hanson haircut. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BruteSquad_BRODY 0 Report post Posted November 14, 2008 Andrew -- In the months and years ahead, we're going to accomplish amazing things together. No president has ever had the support of such a powerful grassroots movement, and Barack and Joe will need you to continue fighting alongside them. But before we take the next step, we need to get our house in order. The Democratic National Committee poured all of its resources into building our successful 50-state field program. And they played a crucial role in helping Barack win in unlikely states like North Carolina and Indiana. We even picked up an electoral vote in Nebraska. The DNC took on considerable debt to make this happen. Make a donation of $30 or more now to help the DNC pay for these efforts, and you'll get a commemorative 2008 Victory T-shirt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted November 15, 2008 BILL AYERS SIGHTING! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted November 15, 2008 Get Paid to Travel Become a Freelance Travel Writer - A Free Quick-Start Guide www.TheTravelWritersLife.com/qstart Freelance $450/Story? Yes Blogs $12-$50 - Articles $25-$45 Freelance Writing - Instant Access www.freelancehomewriters.com Self-Publish Your Poetry See your book's vision come to life in print through BookSurge. www.BookSurge.com Writing published See Your Book in Print and for Sale on Amazon.com- No Setup Costs. www.CreateSpace.com Google mocks my failed dreams Eh, writing is worthless as a profession. Unless you're planning to become a novelist, which you probably are since you're the most urbane dude here and you read a lot of books. But a degree in professional writing? That's bullshit and it won't get you anywhere. Well, scratch that. Won't get ME anywhere. I suppose going through the rigors of higher education will give you the benefit of more knowledge. But that piece of paper won't take you anywhere. (Yeah, I know you wanted to go to grad school. But just graduating once should mean something, shouldn't it? More and more I'm feeling like my bachelor's degree is worth about as much as passing middle school.) I'm a college graduate and my parents want me to take a job at a fucking gas station so I can pay my car insurance. Don't they know my friends are going to laugh at me? Byron the Bulb, are you black? Czech thought you were and I was like "no way, that dude's totally white." Maybe in his world, refined Caucasoids can't appreciate Weezy F. Baby, but I know what's up. i take issue with that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 15, 2008 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Art Sandusky 0 Report post Posted November 16, 2008 There are a few things that are mildly unsettling about all this. First, the use of executive orders. No no no. What next, Bush-esque signing statements? Fucking checks and balances, goddammit. I don't care if it's something great for the nation, there's still a process that must be honored. Second, Detroit. The post from earlier about Ford going back to larger, thirstier models is crap. The importation of the Euro-spec C1 platform Focus (Americans have gotten a second-rate version) and other measures put them ahead of the pack. GM blew its last huge R&D/advertising wad on the GMT9000 platform SUVs (Tahoe, Suburban, Escalade, Yukon) in 2004-2005, with these being released into the market in the fall after Katrina. These bastards have done their damndest to promote beancounters who wanted to cut their way to profitability and couldn't conceive an automobile that the American public wants and needs if their life depended on it. It wasn't low gas prices that made GM the most profitable, biggest corporation on the planet in the 50s. It was a belief of "a vehicle for every pocketbook," with cohesive brand identities and genuine differences between, say, a Pontiac and Chevrolet product beyond the badge on the front. Dealership bloat is also killing off the Big Three. Relative to market share, these companies have far too many stores for small demand. Various franchise laws make it impossible to kill them off, and shuttering a brand can financially hurt more than help (Oldsmobile's mothballing in 2002 cost GM $2b). In Chrysler's case, they shouldn't be eligible for any federal aid, as they're owned by a private firm (Cerberus) which had no intention of making them profitable when they bought the company from Daimler. The point was a "strip and flip." They have nothing in terms of new product in the pipeline and have no intent or capital to improve their lot. Chrysler is damn near worthless in every way, shape, and form with the exception of the Jeep brand and even that was raped with no fewer than three brand diluting products introduced in the last few years. Ford had the sense to bring in someone from the outside (though the Ford family still holds massive pull) and has had to make some hard choices but is in the best financial position of the three Detroit automakers. GM is simultaneously too big to be allowed to fail but also too big to survive. Chrysler is a rotting corpse, a sad end for a once semi-prestigious marque. Anyone who blames the unions with no qualification is a retard. The unions have had unrealistic demands relative to their employers' balance sheets, but beyond the factory floor the blame ultimately lies with the fuckers who allow promising, desirable, and market relevant concepts to be cost cut, delayed, and parts binned into oblivion. It's an extremely difficult situation for both sides of the aisle. Also complicating matters is that many of the suppliers for the automakers, the manufacturers of the transmissions, glass, and interior bits just to name a few are in terrible straits as well. If automaking firms can't get parts for their cars, no one goes anywhere. Any bailout must be structured in the same fashion that Chrysler got in the early 80s: A plan for recovery is required for government money, and the current boards of directors have to be tossed for the most part. It worked and a new one can too but only if done properly. Third, the answer to Afghanistan isn't necessarily more soldiers on the ground. That the militaristic angle is considered before others in American foreign policy is a crime of the highest order. Yes, the fuckers killed 3,000 civilians seven years ago. Yes, they swear up and down that they'll do it again. What happened to the hardline diplomatic stance that won the Cold War? We might be the Great Satan, but people sure do dig the devil's entertainment and blue jeans and representative government. Winning hearts and minds doesn't involve bombs, it involves a hardball diplomatic line that forces our enemies to consider alternatives rather than sending them running for the nearest cave to reload. Fourth, the world is going to keep spinning between now and January 20th and beyond. We can't afford to sit around and put the burden of recovery on a new administration and new Congress. Solutions have to be hammered out quickly. The Q1 reports will start coming out before Obama takes office against the backdrop of what will surely be a lean Christmas season for consumers. Then what? Wait for the magic man to take office while markets collapse? The last week and a half has reeked of euphoria at the expense of a deteriorating situation. I'm as happy as anyone at the conclusion the electorate has reached but there's still a stupiddumbhuge list of problems that need to be addressed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted November 17, 2008 There are a few things that are mildly unsettling about all this. First, the use of executive orders. No no no. What next, Bush-esque signing statements? Fucking checks and balances, goddammit. I don't care if it's something great for the nation, there's still a process that must be honored. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crimson G 0 Report post Posted November 17, 2008 There are a few things that are mildly unsettling about all this. First, the use of executive orders. No no no. What next, Bush-esque signing statements? Fucking checks and balances, goddammit. I don't care if it's something great for the nation, there's still a process that must be honored. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted November 17, 2008 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.) tell me more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted November 17, 2008 Oh, for fuck's sake... There are a few things that are mildly unsettling about all this. First, the use of executive orders. No no no. What next, Bush-esque signing statements? Fucking checks and balances, goddammit. I don't care if it's something great for the nation, there's still a process that must be honored. 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2008 Apparently the point of the big Obama/McCain Mega-Summit was to discuss football. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2008 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Ghost of bps21 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2008 Here's an article on what part of the holdup problem may be: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/cli...inet/index.html Basically...it's Bill... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
At Home 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2008 This really is turning into Blackamelot! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crimson G 0 Report post Posted November 19, 2008 Oh, for fuck's sake... There are a few things that are mildly unsettling about all this. First, the use of executive orders. No no no. What next, Bush-esque signing statements? Fucking checks and balances, goddammit. I don't care if it's something great for the nation, there's still a process that must be honored. 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? What started in 1952? Judicial review of executive orders? I was referring to your statement that EO's had been used since Washington's time and I was trying to point out that they've been just as reckless and oftentimes unconstitutional for the whole history of our country. They blatantly flaunt the fact that they circumvent the supposed checks and balances that our government was founded on. They're not the only way to do so, but they've clearly been used for legislation (this includes amendment, BTW) coming out of the executive branch, a power which is (rightfully) fully vested in the U.S. Congress. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted November 20, 2008 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted November 20, 2008 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crimson G 0 Report post Posted November 20, 2008 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. Just because they haven't been overturned by the Supreme Court doesn't make them any more valid. I don't know why you're making 1952 out to be some landmark year for Executive Orders. That's simply one of the few examples of the Supreme Court getting something right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
