Apparenlty Representative Jerroid Nadier, who is a democrat, delivered a speech on the House floor saying that Obama was becoming a dictator. He said that Obama is out of line with his involvement in Libya without Congressional support, especially because he is in violation of the 60 day period to bring the conflict before Congress under the War Powers Resolution.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dem-reps-surprising-anti-obama-speech-president-becoming-an-absolute-monarch/
So the Democrats are on a mission to get Obama out of Libya? No, its the GOP apparently who are spearheading the move to get the US out of Libya. In fact, the House voted against the Libyan involvment.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/house-votes-against-obamas-military-action-in-libya/
So the GOP is going to demand that Obama pulls out of Libya? Well....no. Apparently a vote was cast to defund the war...er...um...conflict....er...um.....agitated confrontation and 89 Republicans defected thus voting down the measure.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/house-refuses-to-defund-libyan-operation/
So basically Congress id demandijng the US leave Libya, but only through symbolic legislation. When it comes to defunding the conflict, which would end it, they turn tail and run.
Confused? Well you shouldn't be. Simply put, we have a government run by two parties who have common agendas. US participation in Libya is one of those agendas. I guess it makes us feel better, however, when double speak makes us feel as though there are actual opposing voices in government.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI just enjoy people trying engage in partisan mumbo jumbo with such stories, and was hoping to engage them. Surely one of you out there can turn this into the fault of the GOP and make the Dems the night in shining armor once again. Anyone?
astute observation, but i doubt this was the incident that brought it to your attention. surely you were aware of this before?
Originally posted by SoothfastThen you've often spoken BS, the size of the gummints budget, where they get it and their inabilty to stick even within that, the scope of theiir meddling in every economic exchange (unless black market) and almost every other aspect of private lives says - not capitalist, niether one of them.
I've often said that the two main parties in the U.S. are just two faces of the same party: the Capitalist Party. One is apologetic, the other unabashed.
Originally posted by WajomaOf course it's capitalist. In a capitalist system you can accumulate almost limitless cash, and cash buys politicians, and bought politicians afford control over "gummints" -- and if you can't see that "gummints" get big and meddling under capitalism partly because of this process, you're not seeing the whole picture. Your view that "gummints" are completely isolated from the influences of private power and do nothing but muck up free-market paradises is illusory. Very often it's corporations that hold the strings of government, not the other way around.
Then you've often spoken BS, the size of the gummints budget, where they get it and their inabilty to stick even within that, the scope of theiir meddling in every economic exchange (unless black market) and almost every other aspect of private lives says - not capitalist, niether one of them.
Wheels within wheels, buddy. Go back to your welding.
Originally posted by SoothfastWhen buying and selling are controlled by politicians (i.e. not capitalism) then the first to be bought and sold are the pollies.
Of course it's capitalist. In a capitalist system you can accumulate almost limitless cash, and cash buys politicians, and bought politicians afford control over "gummints" -- and if you can't see that "gummints" get big and meddling under capitalism partly because of this process, you're not seeing the whole picture. Your view that "gummints" are comple ...[text shortened]... not the other way around.
Wheels within wheels, buddy. Go back to your welding.
That's precisely the problem, a separation of the state and the economy, then the corps can't buy power, and the pollies can't sell it, more capitalism is what is needed not less, and as I mentioned earlier both the Dems and Reps are a million miles from being 'capitalist' parties.
Originally posted by WajomaHow the hell are you going to "separate" the state and the economy? It's never been done and never will be done.
When buying and selling are controlled by politicians (i.e. not capitalism) then the first to be bought and sold are the pollies.
That's precisely the problem, a separation of the state and the economy, then the corps can't buy power, and the pollies can't sell it, more capitalism is what is needed not less, and as I mentioned earlier both the Dems and Reps are a million miles from being 'capitalist' parties.
Originally posted by SoothfastWhat I see is the left defending Big Government and the right defending Big Business. In the end Big Brother and Big Government are laughing at them both because they are in a cabal to shrink individual liberty and increase their respective power over us all. In fact, corporations are just little meddlesome governments of their own.
I've often said that the two main parties in the U.S. are just two faces of the same party: the Capitalist Party. One is apologetic, the other unabashed.
Originally posted by WajomaA good start would be to end corporate welfare. Wouldn't you agree?
When buying and selling are controlled by politicians (i.e. not capitalism) then the first to be bought and sold are the pollies.
That's precisely the problem, a separation of the state and the economy, then the corps can't buy power, and the pollies can't sell it, more capitalism is what is needed not less, and as I mentioned earlier both the Dems and Reps are a million miles from being 'capitalist' parties.