Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#62465 Jan 15, 2013
Goodbye wrote:
Great post, but you are wrong about one thing: She doesn't THINK! This person has no intelligence whatsoever... can only copy and paste others. <quoted text>
Why don't you shut up and go back and play with your toes some more...it's the only thing you know how to do well!
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#62466 Jan 15, 2013
Honestly wrote:
<quoted text>
The Dems had the majority the first two years of obama and look what it got us, OBama Care. Do you really know how many taxes are in this bill?
Yep....we got a Republican healthcare solution created at the Heritage Foundation...and Republicans have been pi$$ing and moaning about it ever since.
Punch a few keys and check how much money has been wasted in the House on 20 some-odd votes to repeal it.
Democrats wanted single payer, Medicare for all. We got the Republican plan and we reluctantly accepted that. Republicans won the skirmish and have been acting like spoiled children ever since.
I know the tea party version of healthcare consists of two rules.
1 Don't get sick.
2 If you do get sick, refer to rule number 1.
Unfortunately, those without health coverage do get sick, and they suffer, and they die.
I have listened to the complaints about Obamacare until I am ashamed of some of my fellow Americans, who would put a few pennies of tax on their dollar above the value of a fellow American's life.
Dunlapian

Dunlap, TN

#62467 Jan 15, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest that you read the Article before you start running off at the mouth and condemning something that you obviously haven't read!
And another thing, a Nation's economy thrives when money is in circulation...IN CIRCULATION...not sent to Iraq, not spent on 2 Wars, not hoarded by the Super wealthy, not stashed in Off-Shore Accounts to avoid being taxed, but IN CIRCULATION IN THIS COUNTRY!
When People don't have any money to spend or, in the Super Wealthy's case, either spent on other Countries or, invested in the Stock Market or, deposited in numerous Banks...the Economy suffers!
A NATION"S Healthy Economy REQUIRES that Money be IN CIRCULATION! It is not like your Household Finances! A NATION'S Economy and what it takes to make and keep it healthy is totally different than your Household Finances or your Business Finances, but People like you, just CANNOT get that through your thick heads!
MONEY MUST BE IN, AND KEPT IN CIRCULATION and the more money in curculation, the Healthier the Economy, PERIOD!
Yeah Sassy, I read some of the article, it also included a NRA Gun game for kids 4 years and up........when I was 4 I had a "cap gun" and I thought I was cool.
As far as MONEY IN CIRCULATION IN "THIS" COUNTRY, you are spot on. We need to get this money to all of the real small businesses(less than $250,000).
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#62468 Jan 15, 2013
Honestly wrote:
<quoted text>
It obvious you never studied economics. When you run out of money do you quit buying until you get paid or do you just spend more because that will help you in the long run. Oh, you put it on a credit card so now your in debt. When you max out the card, you go bankrupt. What happens when you go bankrupt? Everybody loses if the country goes bankrupt and it is going in that direction.
How can a government which does not function on the gold standard run out of money ? How can a government that is not on the gold standard go bankrupt ? How can a government that has the world's reserve currency do either of the above ?
The answer is it can't. This is not 1970 you know.
I know enough about economics to know that government does not, nor has it ever functioned like a business....government is not a business.
What is obvious to me is that you have never studied history. The great depression ended because of government borrowing and spending on a massive scale.
We will soon see a complete turn around by Republicans on how government spending affects the economy.
I predict we will see Republican members of congress take to the floor and make the case that cuts in defense spending by government will be DEVASTATING to the American economy. This will show everyone what hypocrites they really are.
You can come back and remind me if I am wrong, but I won't hold my breath.
Nuh

South Pittsburg, TN

#62469 Jan 15, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest that you read the Article before you start running off at the mouth and condemning something that you obviously haven't read!
I would suggest you read the Constitution - particularly the part concerning separation of powers...The concept of Separation of Powers is embodied in the Constitution in the 1st Article, in the 2nd Article, and in the 3rd Article.

There is no greater example of usurpation pf power than in the form of the Presidential Executive Order. The process totally by-passes Congressional legislative authority and places in the hands of the President almost unilateral power. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real - or perceived emergency.

To the left, Executive Orders by GW Bush were an infringement upon rights...however, Executive Orders by Obama - in this perceived "emergency" (Never let a crisis go to waste, remember?)- are totally OK.

Careful just who you support to take away your rights.
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#62470 Jan 15, 2013
Hey wrote:
Your right to bare arms is guaranteed also.
No matter what happens... Your right to "bare" arms is safe ! Chuckles !!
Nuh

South Pittsburg, TN

#62471 Jan 15, 2013
Both Dems AND Pubs are spendaholics, neither will will make the tough choices, both will spend tax dollars wastefully to get themselves re-elected, all are a disservice to the Founders that created the positions they now hold.

Here's a PRIME example of just how absolutely SCREWED we are as a nation.

Sandy Relief...for Sassy, et.al. who continually bemoan 'Teapublicans'- it is they who are trying to cut excessive spending on items placed into bills that the spending has nothing to do with:

The Republican-led House Rules Committee late Monday approved a rule for a massive Hurricane Sandy relief package that shuts out most GOP proposals to pare back the size of the bill.

The main bill provides $17 billion in relief, and an amendment made in order would add another $33.7 billion, for a total of $50.7 billion.

Late last week, Republicans offered amendments that would trim the bill significantly, but few of those were made "in order" by the Rules Committee on Monday. For example, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) proposed amendments that would have slashed $22 billion from the total package, but none of them were accepted by the committee.

And Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) proposed several amendments that would have cut more than $300 million from the bill. House Rules made just one of these in order — to cut $13 million in funding to "accelerate the National Weather Service ground readiness project."

All told, Republican amendments were made in order that would cut less than $200 million from the $50.7 billion package. One of these, from Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), would cut $150 million for Regional Ocean Partnership grants.
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#62472 Jan 15, 2013
Nuh wrote:
<quoted text>
To the left, Executive Orders by GW Bush were an infringement upon rights...however, Executive Orders by Obama - in this perceived "emergency" (Never let a crisis go to waste, remember?)- are totally OK.
Careful just who you support to take away your rights.
I didn't like them when Bush used them and I do not like them any better now....nor do I like "siging statements" attached to laws passed by congress and essentially changed by the executive with a signing statement, something Bush was famous for.

I did not like my rights taken by the "Patriot Act" when Bush was President and I do not like it now, I was astounded by some provisions in the NDAA.....SOOO .....What do you propose we do about it ?
These things are being used by presidents of both parties. What frosts most Democrats was the silence from the right when "W" was in the White House and their sudden outrage now... I am NOT pointing that finger at you, since I have no idea what you supported during he Bush years, but I know plenty of Republicans who have just recently (SINCE oh..2008) become constitutional scholars.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#62473 Jan 15, 2013
Nuh wrote:
Both Dems AND Pubs are spendaholics, neither will will make the tough choices, both will spend tax dollars wastefully to get themselves re-elected, all are a disservice to the Founders that created the positions they now hold.
Here's a PRIME example of just how absolutely SCREWED we are as a nation.
Sandy Relief...for Sassy, et.al. who continually bemoan 'Teapublicans'- it is they who are trying to cut excessive spending on items placed into bills that the spending has nothing to do with:
The Republican-led House Rules Committee late Monday approved a rule for a massive Hurricane Sandy relief package that shuts out most GOP proposals to pare back the size of the bill.
The main bill provides $17 billion in relief, and an amendment made in order would add another $33.7 billion, for a total of $50.7 billion.
Late last week, Republicans offered amendments that would trim the bill significantly, but few of those were made "in order" by the Rules Committee on Monday. For example, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) proposed amendments that would have slashed $22 billion from the total package, but none of them were accepted by the committee.
And Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) proposed several amendments that would have cut more than $300 million from the bill. House Rules made just one of these in order — to cut $13 million in funding to "accelerate the National Weather Service ground readiness project."
All told, Republican amendments were made in order that would cut less than $200 million from the $50.7 billion package. One of these, from Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), would cut $150 million for Regional Ocean Partnership grants.
And since Sandy did 60 plus billion in damage, you point is???
Hey

Manchester, TN

#62474 Jan 15, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
<quoted text>
His responsibility is to protect the People in this Country and if you don't think that he and his family need to have alot of protection....and I'm not sure that he and his family have anymore than any other President has had, then, you just haven't paid attention to all the Death Threats that have been made and some ever tried, while he was campaigning the first time! Some of the Threats have been made right here on Topix, against him and his Family.
If you begrudge that, you must be saying that you wouldn't care enough about your Family to protect them, either. You're just a real Champ, aren't you? <s>
I begrudge that he thinks he should have armed guards to watch his a--but take that from others.
And you are right he does need guarding more he is ok with gunning down innocents with his drone attacks yes,that's where we wait for those who help the dead and go back and shoot them up. But that's different that's just some little accident when it is not your family.
First I'm a Rambo with a BIG BIG GUN.
And now a champ that will not protect my family.I will protect but I will not tie someone elses hands behind their back.
Your wonder guy will be after all guns.
Nuh

South Pittsburg, TN

#62475 Jan 15, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't like them when Bush used them and I do not like them any better now....nor do I like "siging statements" attached to laws passed by congress and essentially changed by the executive with a signing statement, something Bush was famous for.
I did not like my rights taken by the "Patriot Act" when Bush was President and I do not like it now, I was astounded by some provisions in the NDAA.....SOOO .....What do you propose we do about it ?
These things are being used by presidents of both parties. What frosts most Democrats was the silence from the right when "W" was in the White House and their sudden outrage now... I am NOT pointing that finger at you, since I have no idea what you supported during he Bush years, but I know plenty of Republicans who have just recently (SINCE oh..2008) become constitutional scholars.
I didn't and don't like the Patriot Act - however, it was passed by congress prior to being signed by Bush so it wasn't an E.O. as bad as it is.

What I feel needs to happen is that Congress at some point has to get some backbone and draw up articles of impeachment for usurption by ANY president.
Truth Detector

Jamestown, TN

#62476 Jan 15, 2013
The Original Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmm, silly laws -- you can't have sex with a toddler.
Constitution -- your right to enjoy the "pursuit of happiness" is guaranteed.
Framing this as such a black-and-white situation is folly.
Ahhh. But your "progressive" buddies are hard at work doing what they do best: effecting change.

At one time, marriage was between a man and a woman. Now you can marry your goat, and some liberal will come to your defense.

Having sex with a toddler? Never you say? Not so fast. Progressives are the case:

"In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03...

"Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pedop...

Normalizing' Pedophilia

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls “the sexual liberation discourse”, which has existed since the 1970s.“There are a lot of people,” she says,“who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we’re wrong about paedophilia.”

Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10. More recently, campaigning organisations of the 70s and 80s such as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and Paedophile Action for Liberation were active members of the NCCL when it made its parliamentary submission questioning the lasting damage caused by consensual paedophilic relations… A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are “nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes”.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/pedophilia/2013/01/...

Give it 15 years, and this will be accepted, just as gay marriage is today. Brought to you by the "progressive" movement. Always moving forwards.
Nuh

South Pittsburg, TN

#62477 Jan 15, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
<quoted text>
And since Sandy did 60 plus billion in damage, you point is???
Simple, really.

My point is - spend $60 Billion, or whatever ON SANDY RELIEF.

NOT $21 million of funding for projects outside the two states suffering the storm damage....like $336 million to Amtrak,$150 million for Alaskan fisheries,$4 million to the Kennedy Space Center, & $4 million to purchase federal vehicles.

Let EACH of these causes be deliberated separate and apart from Sandy relief.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#62478 Jan 15, 2013
Nuh wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest you read the Constitution - particularly the part concerning separation of powers...The concept of Separation of Powers is embodied in the Constitution in the 1st Article, in the 2nd Article, and in the 3rd Article.
There is no greater example of usurpation pf power than in the form of the Presidential Executive Order. The process totally by-passes Congressional legislative authority and places in the hands of the President almost unilateral power. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real - or perceived emergency.
To the left, Executive Orders by GW Bush were an infringement upon rights...however, Executive Orders by Obama - in this perceived "emergency" (Never let a crisis go to waste, remember?)- are totally OK.
Careful just who you support to take away your rights.
----------

Now, what were you saying about supporting the Constitution???
----------
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html
Hey

Manchester, TN

#62479 Jan 15, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text>No matter what happens... Your right to "bare" arms is safe ! Chuckles !!
Wow.Guess the donkeys are after me now.
I think I'll pull a Sassy and hire a teacher when I worry about spelling.
I believe it was the donkeys who said how they pick on someones spelling if they got nothing else.And.. I believe y'all agreed to that when it came from the Tea people.
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#62480 Jan 15, 2013
Nuh wrote:
<quoted text>
He lambasts Bush, et.al. for $4 trillion in debt added in 8 years - and he has added $8 trillion in 4...and plans ever and ever higher increases in spending - adding even more debt.
This statement is a lie. Bush added about 4.8 trillion to the debt in 8 years...Obama added about 4.9 trillion in 4 years. If you tell the truth, which seems damning enough (unless you consider a combination of irresponsible tax cuts and two wars in a near depression) you could make a point. By doing what you did, you bring the veracity your entire post into question.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#62481 Jan 15, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
I begrudge that he thinks he should have armed guards to watch his a--but take that from others.
And you are right he does need guarding more he is ok with gunning down innocents with his drone attacks yes,that's where we wait for those who help the dead and go back and shoot them up. But that's different that's just some little accident when it is not your family.
First I'm a Rambo with a BIG BIG GUN.
And now a champ that will not protect my family.I will protect but I will not tie someone elses hands behind their back.
Your wonder guy will be after all guns.
I guess you'd rather see the blood of our Troops spilled on the battlefield, since you're a "Rambo". Well not me, Fella! And since that's what you want and since you've got a "BIG BIG Gun" and claim to know how to use it, why don't you enlist and just take your Happy Azz right on over there. There's still another year of blood-spilling to be done and the Enemy would love to spill yours, I'm sure! "Uncle Sam wants you"! "Be all that you can be"! ENLIST!
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#62482 Jan 15, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.Guess the donkeys are after me now.
I think I'll pull a Sassy and hire a teacher when I worry about spelling.
I believe it was the donkeys who said how they pick on someones spelling if they got nothing else.And.. I believe y'all agreed to that when it came from the Tea people.
No sense of humor "Hey" ?? I see that bare arms all the time....mostly from those who tell me to read the Constitution ! Sorry I offended you... I apologize.
Nuh

South Pittsburg, TN

#62483 Jan 15, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
Now, what were you saying about supporting the Constitution???
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.)
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Where, exactly, is Executive Order mentioned?

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.h...
Dunlapian

Dunlap, TN

#62484 Jan 15, 2013
Nuh wrote:
<quoted text>
I would suggest you read the Constitution - particularly the part concerning separation of powers...The concept of Separation of Powers is embodied in the Constitution in the 1st Article, in the 2nd Article, and in the 3rd Article.
There is no greater example of usurpation pf power than in the form of the Presidential Executive Order. The process totally by-passes Congressional legislative authority and places in the hands of the President almost unilateral power. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real - or perceived emergency.
To the left, Executive Orders by GW Bush were an infringement upon rights...however, Executive Orders by Obama - in this perceived "emergency" (Never let a crisis go to waste, remember?)- are totally OK.
Careful just who you support to take away your rights.
Since you bring up Executive Order, lets compare the first terms of the last 2 Presidents, during a comparable amount of time;

As of Sept. 20 2004 G.W. Bush signed 160.

As of Sept. 25 2012 B.H. Obama signed 139.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greeneville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
fun thing to do ***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Sep '10) 10 min Bree_Z 5,639
Effects from smoking cigarettes 23 min Word Woman 21
Boone Fletcher 1 hr Zippy 3
"Greeneville police: 2 infants found dead in ho... 1 hr From Jenny xoxo 162
***** last post wins ***** 1 hr Bree_Z 595
On the 1st day of Christmas 2 hr From Jenny xoxo 32
Favorite Classic Music? 3 hr Bree_Z 25
What goes on at Timberfell? (Sep '11) 10 hr Greene Light 277
Principal at Mosheim 15 hr Geeze Louise 79
Greeneville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Greeneville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Greeneville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Greeneville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:22 am PST

Bleacher Report12:22AM
Atlanta Falcons: Steven Jackson out Opens Up the Offense More
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Colts' Complete Week 17 Preview vs. Titans
NFL 5:53 AM
Steven Jackson reportedly likely out for Falcons
NBC Sports10:26 AM
Panthers RB Williams probable vs. Falcons - NBC Sports
ESPN10:41 AM
Panthers RB Stewart gets nod vs. Falcons