Tweet
Bush and Cheney were pikers compared to Obama. It's not even close.
-
-
"But, absent that change, then the law is the law."
You know damn well there is not a single law in this country that is not subject to selective enforcement or discretionary application.Comment
-
"and how many people do you think believed that stan..?
One issue I've had with this whole discussion has been the term "fans". When I see the BTN posts on FB, fans from every team have piled on for the kids and against the kids."
Oh I'm sorry I guess you missed the public comments from your regent who is calling for the dismissal from the team those black players who seem to think the President of the University means it when he says the school as an institution guarantees freedom of speech. But I'm sure they are well fed and housed as they do the work of the school.Last edited by UMStan White; September 28, 2016, 02:00 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by Hannibal View Post
Yes torture and enemy combatants were mere child's play....Comment
-
Hanni, you just got ROASTED!!!!!Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
Amiwrong?Comment
-
Well on the one hand you have war profiteers and on the other you have a politician who has been one of the most thoroughly investigated by his enebies as there has ever been, and nothing stuck so somebody made up the birthers controversy. So the obvious conclusion is that Obama hasn't used his powers for self-enrichment. Given that Cheney used the powers of the office to directly enrich himself, you'd have a hell of a time backing that claim.Originally posted by Hannibal View PostComment
-
Yes, they were. That's the best post that you have made in this thread.Originally posted by froot loops View PostComment
-
I'm not aware of any law that subject to complete and total disregard. Selective enforcement means it's still the law; total disregard, obviously, means it is not a law in any real way.You know damn well there is not a single law in this country that is not subject to selective enforcement or discretionary application.
That said, I'm certainly not familiar with the laws of all 50 states, all USC laws and unfathomably vast CFR, so maybe there are laws out there that we absolutely and completely disregard. In the areas I practice and in my experience there is no such provision I'm aware of.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
Going just by executive orders, 291 under Bush and 235 under Obama, according to Wikipedia.Comment
-
Yeah, I think that's a bad metric.
I don't have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other on who expanded the Executive the most. I think you see expansion when Congress is controlled by the other party. I don't attribute more fidelity to the process to one party over another.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
Originally posted by iam416 View Post
If it is so subject to total disregard, then why have the number of illegal immigrants been static at minimum or dropped according to some figures?
There has had to be some enforcemen, no?Comment
-
How many industries did W. shut down with his?Originally posted by hack View Post
Use of Executive orders by itself isn't Unconstitutional. Use of Excecutive orders as a substitute for the Legistlative process is.Comment
-
A chart for Executive Orders from 538: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/e...-in-one-chart/
Executive orders can be problematic depending on the substance and the process, but often they're perfectly fine. My far bigger complaint is the rise of the administrative state.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
I don't know that it's a perfect metric, but what's the case for it not being relevant at all?Comment
Comment