Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Littikani

---

I am growing impatient.

Please respond to this post .

Respond to each point I made and explain why you disagree or agree.

Otherwise I am afraid you are clearly avoiding it.
Which will reveal your true intentions here.

In order to reign in Govt subsidies, unreasonable contracts, etc; the President can utilize Veto power and prevent specific bills from being passed. Also by cutting many agencies from the Executive branch it will also cut out large funding mechanisms for the corporations. For example the Department of Education cuts. Agencies like this essentially award lucrative contracts to various corporations and overpay for services thus giving them more power than they would have otherwise in a more competitive market paradigm. Also if we had a President who was not getting us involved in conflicts/wars without the consent of Congress than we would be involved in far less foreign engagements, and this would also cut spending which the corporations feed from and undermine their powers greatly.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Littikani

---

You claimed he was going to allow the corporations to have free reign without explaining how he has the power or mechanisms to do it as well, didn't you?

In order to reign in Govt subsidies, unreasonable contracts, etc; the President can utilize Veto power and prevent specific bills from being passed.

Also by cutting many agencies from the Executive branch it will also cut out large funding mechanisms for the corporations.

For example the Department of Education cuts.
Agencies like this essentially award lucrative contracts to various corporations and overpay for services thus giving them more power than they would have otherwise in a more competitive market paradigm.

Also if we had a President who was not getting us involved in conflicts/wars without the consent of Congress than we would be involved in far less foreign engagements, and this would also cut spending which the corporations feed from and undermine their powers greatly.

All legislation passed by both houses of Congress must be presented to the President. This presentation is in the President's capacity as Head of State.

If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it (sign into law). According to Article 1. Section 7 of the Constitution, when the president chooses, If he does not approve, he must return the bill, unsigned, within ten days, excluding Sundays, to the house of the United States Congress in which it originated, while the Congress is in session. The President is constitutionally required to state his objections to the legislation in writing, and the Congress is constitutionally required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation. This action, in effect, is a veto.

If the Congress overrides the veto by a two-thirds majority in each house, it becomes law without the President's signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to become law unless it is presented to the President again and he chooses to sign it.

Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.

Originally posted by Littikani

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Littikani

---

I am growing impatient.

So am I.

Please respond to this post .

Not only did I about 20 minutes ago, I got to explain that a few times now since then. That is not impatient, that is something else.

I have asked twice now what name I called you.

Respond to each point I made and explain why you disagree or agree.

You do not get to dictate to me about anything. Hell, you cannot even tell me what name I called you.

Otherwise I am afraid you are clearly avoiding it.
Which will reveal your true intentions here.

Hmmm. So what does your harping on it for 20 minutes after I replied to it reveal about you?

Originally posted by Littikani

So what does that make you?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Littikani

---

So you are saying that the Executive branch does not have veto power to stop Congressional legislation?

Originally posted by muzzleflash


The Dept of Education disappearing won't do anything to the children, that's an appeal to emotion fallacy.

Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.

By eliminating expensive and bloated bureaucracies, we save money and are able to pay off national debt and lower taxation rates.

Also according to the statistics, the United States overall public schooling system has scored progressively worse than prior to the inception of this department. So the ED actually lowered the educational standards of the nation on average significantly.

And as the scoring aptitude decreases, the standards for testing are lowered so as to "make the scores look better".

Also we have higher crime rates in schools since the Department's inception in 1979-80.

Also it's not the 'DOE'- That's the Dept of Energy. You can use either "ED" or "DoED" for Dept of Education.
Dept Education (wiki)

Your appeal to emotion is actually entirely unfounded.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

False dichotomy and supressed correlative fallacy.

This isn't a debate of the costs between:
1) Wars Undeclared by Congress yet still pursued
and
2) Wars Declared by Congress

This is actually a debate of the frequency of war involvement between:
1) Wars Undeclared by Congress yet still pursued
and
2) Wars Declared by Congress

and this would also cut spending which the corporations feed from and undermine their powers greatly.

And the facts reveal that Congress is reluctant to declare war often times, whereas the President is not as reluctant to pursue an undeclared (unofficial) war.

If the President does not pursue undeclared wars than the frequency of war involvement overall drops drastically and thus the lack of those wars will cause the cost of the nation's war expenditures to drop significantly.

Nice try on attempting to shift the debate into a false dichotomy, but alas, no cigar.

Your initial response is here link
time stamped : 04:51 AM

The very post you are quoting was just above your response, time stamped : 04:43 AM

edit on 14-1-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by Littikani

---

At least Dana Bash knew when she was getting snowballed.
Hint.

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by Littikani

---

Just responding since you quoted me early on, and wanted to say welcome to ATS and you sure are a determined poster. But moderation is good, too. So, who're you rooting for in 2012? Will go out on a limb and assume not Ron Paul.