It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An honest question to those on the left.

page: 12
18
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Olivine
 


I get the example clarification.

It's a little off topic, but my personal view, and I assume many on the right, that things have gone too far, In general.

I see the environment as improving and will continue to do so. "global warming", which has been flat-lined for the last 15 years, at a minimum, has morphed into "climate change" which occurs daily and majorly 4 times a year.


However, while I have an intense dislike of the current version of the EPA, I wouldn't want zero control on environmental issues either. A well defined role, sans the ambiguous language given to these agencies on a federal level and proper over-site from congress would go along way to correcting my concerns.

There's many similar examples out there.

As far as a decent wage goes, it will never be fair. Be it enforced by a gov't agency or subject to supply and demand stresses.

One person's label of greed is another label of sheer survival. The greed crowd is equally matched by the envy crowd who plead it's all "unfair".

I neither trust nor believe either. LOL.

Your Laissez Faire is my micro-managing with absurd and arbitrary regulations that are growing in leaps and bounds, largely designed to favor the big boys...both parties, if not the same "benefactors"....

Lastly, compromise is an ingredient, in my view, that has resulted in the cultural mess we find ourselves. That has led, in turn, to more corporate greed, more greed top to bottom. That includes those who lobby for "fairer" wages/benefits rather than working for them.

I'm sure you disagree with my take on this. This is why I hold little hope of workable compromise.

More and more, day by day, I become convinced that this Union has run it's course. That you and those of similar mind can form your own smaller union which stresses your values. Mine and my ilk can do likewise with ours......




posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 

I'm not playing the left/right game anymore! All those things that the majority of the people seem to be overwelmingly against seem to have no problem getting through congress!
While things like a little more support for our returning troops get shot down by the political bickering!
It's us/them!!!



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

nwtrucker
Each side of the political issue well knows the views of the other.

The current administration has taken us down a road that, obviously, the right disagrees with.

It's the Obama's methods that I ask you about. Do you support Obama's use of executive orders/ constitutional violations?

That is my question to you. Is there even a thought or a concern about it on your part?

Is this the "ends justify the means" and it's the "right" thing to do? Do you see no consequence down the road to these actions?

Do you support the notion that the EPA and others can make new regulations without congressional approval? I.E. apparently 80% of wood burning stoves are banned nation wide as of Jan.3 and fireplaces are the next target for banning?

Are you even aware of these issues as the "mainstream" media has, at best, minimized them?

I guess I'm looking for a deeper understanding of the right as I've seen almost lockstep support for Obama's methods, top to bottom, in the Democrat party. Do you see no collateral damage to your party by these actions?

Sorry. It started out being one question and ended up with a few more.

Any downsides or totally righteous?


so let me get this straight...and I am not an Obama apologist...just one of those scary Socialists...

you say "an honest question" and then follow up with the veiled insults and you want me and others to answer you thinking you are being fair and impartial? You instnatly show the nature of this post

Do you support Obama's use of executive orders/ constitutional violations?

So here is an honest question for you...I swear it's impartial

Did you support Bush's use of executive orders / constitutional violations?

That's what it sounds like to me right out

and no I don't support all that Obama has done. While we suffer economically, I don't believe McCain would have made any difference and I beleive it would have been just as bad. The difference is, had McCain/Palin won that election, I believe they would have set back what I believe is social progress.

So those are my thoughts

no Obama isn't the so-called god-send I had hoped for. I wish things would have happened as he promised but it didn't.

But I don't think things would have improved with McCain/Palin



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by KyoZero
 


I agree almost completely with you.

I don't consider myself a "liberal" but I do have some liberal views. I also have conservative views, socialist views and libertarian views, so I don't belong to any one group.

I don't mind Obama's Executive Orders. I think it's the only resort he has had to get ANYTHING done. The GOP-led Congress has fulfilled their promise by obstructing every single issue Obama tries to tackle, probably so he would be seen as ineffective. So, if he has to use the process of EO to get some things done, I don't have a problem with it.

As regards Constitutional violations, he's certainly no worse that GWB and much less in violation than GWB was. So, while I certainly don't approve of the Patriot Act (for example) and I probably don't judge some of his actions (like the ACA) as violations of the Constitution.

As regards the EPA and wood-burning stoves, it's not like they're going to come into our homes and remove our pellet stove. There would be stricter regulations, just like we have on our vehicle emissions, for MANUFACTURERS. We can still have wood stoves, but they would have to meet certain emission standards. I have no problem with this. The result: cleaner air... I can't find fault with that in this age. Our air and water must be clean for us to survive.

I certainly don't support everything Obama has done. I've been furious with him at times. But I think John McCain and Mitt Romney would have gotten us into more wars, done even more than Obama has for the wealthy and we'd be further on our way to a Theocracy and further down the path to destruction. Will it make a difference in the long run? I doubt it. No one is willing to CHANGE Washington and how this country is run enough to make a difference in the "ends". If they were, I'd support them.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Benevolent Heretic
I don't mind Obama's Executive Orders. I think it's the only resort he has had to get ANYTHING done. ...


Here's something that'll scare you ...
Picture a President Huckabee in office and him saying the same thing.
'I have to use executive orders because it's the only way I can get ANYTHING done'.
We'd have a serious theocracy problem started.
Or picture President John McCain in office saying the same thing.
'I have to use executive orders because it's the only way I can get ANYTHING done'.
We'd be at war in Syria overnight.

If it's okay for Obama .. it's okay for Huckabee and McCain.
If it's not okay for Huckabee and McCain .. it's not okay for Obama.

Obama playing with executive orders is just as frightening to me as the thought of
Huckabee or McCain playing with them. Some of his executive ideas are wonky. IMHO



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I said, "I don't mind Obama's Executive Orders". And that's what I meant. An EO can be a good thing or it can be an abuse. If it pushed us toward a theocracy or war, I wouldn't like it.


Past Presidents have signed many more than he has. Source



Franklin Roosevelt 3,522
Ronald Reagan 381
Bill Clinton 364
George W. Bush 291
Barack Obama 168



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

My thing is that if one is doing it 'because that's the only way to get things done' ... then others will do it 'to get things done' THEIR way. Neither you nor I like 'the way' that a lot of these politicians want things done. It just makes me nervous ...



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by KyoZero
 


Wow, I kept the original thread as impartial as I could at the time. if your "insulted", then it's beyond easy to do. LOL.

My beef with the EOs of Obama is in large part the direct negating of extant law, i.e. the A.C.A. that he pushed and signed into law.

The last count I saw, a couple of weeks ago, was 15 E.O.s. that contravened that law. Largely, in the opinion of many, to ease the backlash from the upcoming mid-term elections

Do you truly have no problem with Congress and unions being exempted while we do bear the brunt? Do you agree with illegals being promoted to and signed up at Mexican consulates which they, of course, will fall into the "free" category which, again, we will pay for?

Every "sin" possible by our " leaders" has been committed by in the past by others, both parties. I cede that. They are, after all, politicians.

I ask you yet again, do you have a problem with it?

In my view, this is only one issue I have with this administration. One piece of the overall picture, the one example I thought would be the easiest to articulate and the most blatant to all.

In one way I am stunned by the responses, in another, sadly, not unexpected.

I see now that no viable compromise is possible. I believe this union has run it's course and dissolution is inevitable. It's just a question of when and how much collateral damage occurs as a result.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


P.S. Socialists don't scare me. I've had to put up with them to some degree my whole life. One can get used to anything, given enough time. LOL.

I actually want you to have the system that resonates with you. As long as it's in YOUR state. Not enforced in everyone else's.

Now if we could just get you "socialists" to be that tolerant to those that don't see things your way then I suspect both sides could have their visions of "heaven on earth".



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

nwtrucker
reply to post by KyoZero
 


Wow, I kept the original thread as impartial as I could at the time. if your "insulted", then it's beyond easy to do. LOL.

My beef with the EOs of Obama is in large part the direct negating of extant law, i.e. the A.C.A. that he pushed and signed into law.

The last count I saw, a couple of weeks ago, was 15 E.O.s. that contravened that law. Largely, in the opinion of many, to ease the backlash from the upcoming mid-term elections

Do you truly have no problem with Congress and unions being exempted while we do bear the brunt? Do you agree with illegals being promoted to and signed up at Mexican consulates which they, of course, will fall into the "free" category which, again, we will pay for?

Every "sin" possible by our " leaders" has been committed by in the past by others, both parties. I cede that. They are, after all, politicians.

I ask you yet again, do you have a problem with it?

In my view, this is only one issue I have with this administration. One piece of the overall picture, the one example I thought would be the easiest to articulate and the most blatant to all.

In one way I am stunned by the responses, in another, sadly, not unexpected.

I see now that no viable compromise is possible. I believe this union has run it's course and dissolution is inevitable. It's just a question of when and how much collateral damage occurs as a result.




Ok I should restate that when I say I am bothered by it, I am not losing any sleep over it...it's just you approached the question immediately by calling them unconstitutional...moving on

I agree with what the ACA was meant to be...and while wholly unpopular, I do believe medical insurance should be mandatory...for ALL. That's my genuine 100% honest opinion.

Now with that said, I am not happy with how ACA turned out. Frankly I am 100% behind socialized health care but as we've seen in this country if the word 'social' comes up we all run scared

with that said, I am not against EO's

I accept that I got overly jumpy in my response and I apologize for that

but for the most part no, EO's don't bother me



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


nwtrucker
My beef with the EOs of Obama is in large part the direct negating of extant law, i.e. the A.C.A. that he pushed and signed into law.


I'm confused by this statement. The ACA was not an EO. It went through the Senate and House and was legally signed into law. The constitutionality of the ACA has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court. Here is an article explaining how and why that happened.

The Constitutionality of the ACA



The burden "“ and it is a significant one "“ is on the opponents to prove that the law is constitutionally flawed. The four major arguments they have raised so far have come nowhere close to meeting that burden.


People are free to have the opinion that it violates the Constitution, but the burden is on the opponents to prove that and they simply haven't.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Then let me clarify. The E.O.s in question contravene the A.C.A.. The A.C.A. is law. Like it or not.

Changes to that law requires congressional approval. Obama by-passed that...repeatedly. Some are probably not significant, however, many are. Special interest exemptions added coverage, contradictory delays, etc.

These are clearly unconstitutional E.O.s

Hope that helps.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Actually, the process of proving the unconstitutionality of the A.C.A. itself is ongoing as we speak.

One can sign E.O.s a lot faster than proving the unconstitutionality. That takes a bit more time...LOL.

Therefore, "clearly, they haven't" is spin.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 



nwtrucker
Therefore, "clearly, they haven't" is spin.


Not really. I didn't say they never would. I said they simply haven't. That means they haven't, not that they never will. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Cough, cough, the implication was there...LOL. But, I agree. This will come to head long before the courts rule on it.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join