Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    11 Dec '15 02:162 edits
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3354952/New-bypass-Congress-gun-control-Obama-demands-tougher-background-checks-WITHOUT-vote.html

    The president's advisers are close to finishing a proposal that would allow him to enact new gun control measures without congressional approval, a top White House official has revealed.

    The recommendations will be ready 'in short order,' Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett said yesterday evening at a vigil to commemorate the Dec. 14, 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, that resulted in 27 deaths, including the gunman.

    According to the Associated Press, Jarrett indicated that advisers had determined how the president could unilaterally expand background checks using his executive authority.

    The White House would not comment on the effort today.



    The president's advisers are close to finishing a proposal that would allow him to enact new gun control measures without congressional approval, a top White House official has revealed

    'At this point, I still don't have an update on the progress the administration is making on scrubbing the rules,' White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters at his daily press briefing.

    This was after he proverbially beat down Republicans in the legislative branch for attempting to attach ideological riders to a must-pass spending bill in order to 'sneak 'em through.'

    Such 'ideologically motivated policies that wouldn't otherwise be able to pass Congress,' he noted.

    One such measure that House Republicans wanted to tack on the bill was a National Rifle Association-backed proposal that pertained guns and felons' ability to purchase them.

    Earnest indicated today that he was primarily referring to earmarks, which 'in some cases' benefit the 'biggest contributors to the Republican Party.'

    But he's generically been jabbing Republicans throughout the process for trying to use the legislation as a vehicle for partisan proposals.

    'We have been aggressively advocating to Republicans in Congress that they should focus on the budgetary priorities of the country and not try to advance ideological aspects of their agenda that have been stalled other places,' he said Tuesday afternoon.

    Democrats have also tried to insert gun language into the massive spending bill.

    Pushing what the administration has dubbed the 'no-fly, no buy' proposal, Democrats have sought to bar Americans on the FBI's terror watch list from purchasing guns.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    11 Dec '15 02:20
    Why do they not just disband Congress?

    All they do is obstruct our emperor.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52856
    11 Dec '15 17:49
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why do they not just disband Congress?

    All they do is obstruct our emperor.
    It was ok for a previous emperor Bush Jr to invade Iraq which is what caused what we see there today, right?
  4. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    11 Dec '15 18:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3354952/New-bypass-Congress-gun-control-Obama-demands-tougher-background-checks-WITHOUT-vote.html

    The president's advisers are close to finishing a proposal that would allow him to enact new gun control measures without congressional approval, a top White House official has revealed.

    The recommendations will be re ...[text shortened]... sal, Democrats have sought to bar Americans on the FBI's terror watch list from purchasing guns.
    It's "proposal" Whodey, not a "universal ban" in itself. If you had bothered to look up the definition of the word proposal, you would not have had to write the rest of your mindless drivel.

    😞
  5. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    11 Dec '15 18:50
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It was ok for a previous emperor Bush Jr to invade Iraq which is what caused what we see there today, right?
    Almost every President since WWII has engaged in Warfare without a legal declaration of War. It isn't partisan, but we the people tend to favor it politically.
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    11 Dec '15 19:18
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It was ok for a previous emperor Bush Jr to invade Iraq which is what caused what we see there today, right?
    Bush Jr is still alive. There's no such thing as a living "previous emperor".

    The "American Empire" meme is propaganda and wordplay that is intended to distort the truth. USA is not an Empire. You all forget what real Empires were like.
  7. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    11 Dec '15 22:17
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Bush Jr is still alive. There's no such thing as a living "previous emperor".

    The "American Empire" meme is propaganda and wordplay that is intended to distort the truth. USA is not an Empire. You all forget what real Empires were like.
    In 1783, the year the United States formally gained its independence
    from Great Britain, George Washington described the newborn republic
    as a “rising empire.” He elaborated a few years later, as the
    fledgling nation struggled for viability under the restraints imposed
    by the Articles of Confederation and the constraints imposed by the
    European powers. America was but an “infant empire,” Washington
    conceded to his former comrade-in-arms, the Marquis de Lafayette.
    “However unimportant America may be considered at present,” he
    nevertheless predicted, “there will assuredly come a day, when this
    country will have some weight in the scale of Empires.”
  8. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    11 Dec '15 22:22
    Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, when the viability of the new
    nation was highly precarious, Thomas Jefferson famously labeled the
    United States the “Empire of Liberty.” More than a quarter-century
    later, however, after Jefferson had abandoned his initial optimism regarding
    the potential for the peoples native to America to embrace
    liberty as defined by immigrants to America, and having played an
    instrumental role in America’s enactment of the Northwest Ordinance
    and purchase of the Louisiana Territory, the Declaration of Independence’s
    lead author relabeled America the “Empire for Liberty.” This
    book argues that Jefferson’s revision signaled a commitment to a more
    aggressive, proactive extension of that sphere of liberty—and hence a
    greater American empire.
    Further, for Americans liberty is even more difficult to define than
    empire. Americans believe in liberty and they support the advancement
    of liberty, but they interpret the word so broadly, and in so many
    different contexts, that it all but loses its meaning.
  9. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    11 Dec '15 22:25
    When George Washington used the word empire, he meant a polity that exercised
    sovereignty over and was responsible for the security of a large expanse
    of territory that, composed of previously separate units now
    subordinate to the metropolis (thus distinguishing an empire from,
    for example, a commonwealth or even an alliance), included many
    peoples of diverse “races” (as broadly defined at that time) and nationalities.
    As would be expected because of violence’s historic role in the
    establishment of empires, not all the people within the heterogeneous
    population could qualify as citizens, not all were equal, not all could or
    would assimilate, and not all consented to the rule of the sovereign.20
    There is thus merit to Arthur Schlesinger’s argument that Washington
    and his fellow Founding Fathers used empire interchangeably
    with state. But their use of empire was not due simply to their desire
    for a synonym. They had ambitions that went beyond consolidation
    and were signaled by the word empire. They had in mind a particular
    “genre” of state that would grow in size, strength, and prosperity,
    exercise control over populations that either considered themselves
    autonomous or resided beyond America’s political boundaries
  10. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    11 Dec '15 22:281 edit
    The meaning of empire changed over the course of the nineteenth
    century, especially by its latter half. Until then its definition remained
    primarily functional, with the emphasis on the exercise of governance.
    In this anodyne sense there was little reason to associate empire with
    anything pejorative. Americans did not, even as they annihilated or
    forcibly relocated Native Americans, executed foreign nationals, and
    conquered territories. This was because empire and state were still
    largely synonymous, and U.S. behavior was acceptable for a state with
    its capabilities; because U.S. expansion remained continental and restricted
    to contiguous territory (in the view of many, as a consequence,
    “natural” ) with the purpose of bringing civilization to what was perceived
    as wilderness; because empires were commonplace features of
    the international system (what nation did not aspire to be an empire?);
    and because there were few audible voices of opposition or protest.
    That the U.S. Constitution required the incorporation of added territory
    as states, and the populations of these states were invariably eager
    to apply for membership, reinforced the consensus that Americans
    should be proud of their empire.
    The Civil War and the occupation of the Southern states during Reconstruction
    served as a catalyst for changing views about empire.
    Contesting the meaning of liberty, white Americans as well as black,
    Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and others challenged the central
    government’s authority to deny them self-rule. The implications
    transcended traditional disputes over federalism, republicanism, and
    states’ rights. Further, the extension of the British Empire through the
    exploitation of its commercial dominance to acquire political jurisdiction
    without establishing colonies, for example in Asia and Latin
    America, indicated that a metropolis could exercise rule informally.
    It was not until the mid-twentieth century that scholars, following
    John A. Gallagher and Ronald E. Robinson, began to use the phrase
    imperialism of free trade. In the late nineteenth century, nevertheless,
    imperialism as a stand-alone concept dramatically entered the political
    vocabulary.
  11. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    11 Dec '15 22:32
    All from introduction to

    Empire for Liberty:
    A History of American Imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz
    Richard H. Immerman
  12. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    18 Dec '15 21:39
    Originally posted by finnegan
    In 1783, the year the United States formally gained its independence
    from Great Britain, George Washington described the newborn republic
    as a “rising empire.” He elaborated a few years later, as the
    fledgling nation struggled for viability under the restraints imposed
    by the Articles of Confederation and the constraints imposed by the
    European powers. ...[text shortened]... re will assuredly come a day, when this
    country will have some weight in the scale of Empires.”
    The USA certainly has weight in the scale of Empires (and beyond!) but George Washington showed what he really believed when he refused to be President for life.
  13. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    18 Dec '15 21:433 edits
    Originally posted by finnegan
    The meaning of empire changed over the course of the nineteenth
    century, especially by its latter half. Until then its definition remained
    primarily functional, with the emphasis on the exercise of governance.
    In this anodyne sense there was little reason to associate empire with
    anything pejorative. Americans did not, even as they annihilated or
    forci ...[text shortened]... ertheless,
    imperialism as a stand-alone concept dramatically entered the political
    vocabulary.
    The meaning of the word Empire changed during the 19th century, did it? So Victorian Britain was...what? Something else? How about the Empire of Japan? Not really an Empire by the new definition I suppose. We'll have to find a new name for such entities to distinguish them from the new Empire (which is what we used to call Republics like in pre Imperial Rome)

    I bet the US Empire didn't war with the Spanish Empire because Spain was using the old pre 19th century meaning of Empire. They can't BOTH be Empires. Totally different political system. Hint - One had an unelected King.

    🙄
  14. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    18 Dec '15 22:22
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It was ok for a previous emperor Bush Jr to invade Iraq which is what caused what we see there today, right?
    So you would justify one evil by another?
  15. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    18 Dec '15 22:24
    Originally posted by finnegan
    All from introduction to

    Empire for Liberty:
    A History of American Imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz
    Richard H. Immerman
    The "American Empire" meme is propaganda and wordplay that is intended to distort the truth. USA is not an Empire. You all forget what real Empires were like.
Back to Top