It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
apparently 80% of wood burning stoves are banned nation wide as of Jan.3 and fireplaces are the next target for banning?
wth?! Are the yreally planning that? Happy i dont live in US, it's truly an idiocracy.
If only political ideology was so simple as that, but that is a naive simplistic narrative fit for the MSM. It could easily be said there are those who think it is there right to take what is not theirs from the rest. And those that oppose it, Is it businesses right to ship American jobs oversea? Is it right for corporate America to carry a lesser tax burden while doing so? Is it right to reap record profits off the poverty of your fellow Americans? The left right polarization is a dangerous ignorant path walked by blind sheep lead astray by those who are to greedy and lazy to take their resposibity as citizens seriously. I used to be a dem, than I was a rep, finally I took the blinders off and saw that neither is for our people our nation.
And just to show everyone that Obama is definitely not as bad as the previous republican candidate, let us recap all of the illegal things Bush did while in office:
According to the summary by President Clinton, the bill was intended to establish federal criminal jurisdiction over acts of international terrorism. Civil liberty advocacy groups opposed the bill on the grounds that it would violate fundamental civil liberties, including the right to confront one's accuser.  Another source of opposition was the Government's ability to use evidence from secret sources in deportation proceedings for suspected terrorists.  During the debate over the Patriot Act of 2001 then Senator Joe Biden compared this bill to its 2001 counterpart stating "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill.
The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton.
"extraordinary renditions", were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. ch. 36) is a United States federal law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism). The law does not apply outside the United States. It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks.
reply to post by olaru12
I agree that he isn't a liberal. He's a socialist, apparently. As for why the "right" isn't dancing in the isles, different corporations?
How can Obama be a socialist when he is in the pocket of the Corporate Oligarchy and the military/industrial complex they represent.
Is it socialist for our taxdollars to be used to prop up banks,
orporate grants, Oil company subsidies
Sorry to chime in
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?
reply to post by Gryphon66
Ok. Fine. You say a "coy act". My experience tells me the accuser is usually guilty of the 'crime' they accuse others of.
I went to the site and promptly started to doze off....
I told you my understanding of this is limited, you respond with study up.... must be an academic...
I refer to the 16 changes-so far- arbitrarily made by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act.
Are you saying these changes, or some of them, aren't E.O.s? Is there some other mechanism that can be used by the President?
All that is coming across is tidbits that-deliberately, I believe-clarify nothing. Not your opinion on the subject. Getting a yes or no seems to be in the same area code as pulling teeth. Talk about coy...