An honest question to those on the left.

Lokk555

nwtrucker
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.

This is once again "Much Ado About Nothing" aka the Republican Spin Machine™.

The Democrats have a similar Spin Machine™ it's called "The Comedy of Errors."

Here's the facts. The EPA has established a new requirement in the manufacture of wood stoves: current ones must limit fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 microgram limit.

That's it. A change of 3 micrograms in emissions. It's dumb whichever way you look at it, but that's the fact.

From the EPA site: "On January 3, 2014, EPA proposed revisions to the residential wood heater new source performance standards (NSPS) under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The draft revisions apply to new heaters ONLY and do not apply to existing wood stoves and other wood heaters installed in peoples’ homes." (Source)

Forbes wrote an alarmist (and misleading) article and the right-wing spin machine picked it up recopied to blog after blog verbatim and didn't bother to research.

The link is above, read it for yourself.

Well let me ask you a question. Did you support Bush's use of executive orders and other measures, which were blatantly at odds with the Constitution of the United States? Is this a dig at liberals, or are you genuinely curious? Given my past experience, I would guess the former, but I could be wrong.

And I think your question should not just apply to liberals. Conservatives seem to think that what Obama has done is sooo bad, yet I heard no complaints when Bush, a member of the same party, was disregarding our rights and the Constitution. And I would definitely argue that Obama has done more good for the country than Bush, considering he is at least attempting to fix a broken system. At least he is attempting to spend money on social programs, rather than getting us involved in new and pointless wars overseas.

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:

Implemented torture, as admitted by Susan J. Crawford, senior administration official who was in charge of the courts dealing with suspected terrorists.

Intentionally violating another statute with criminal penalties—the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This meant a FISA court had to OK any spying done on US citizens. President Bush deliberately flouted the law and Constitution (the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights implies that warrants are needed for all searches, with no exception mentioned for cases of national security) by not seeking warrants and continuing to ignore the need to do this even after being publicly exposed.

And then he tried to defend his actions by stating he had the power to make these decisions because we were at war. WRONG. When this occurred Congress had never officially declared a state of war. And it wouldn't have mattered anyway to be honest, but that doesn't really matter now. Checks and balances were essentially thrown out the window, and he wasn't prosecuted. If anyone should have been impeached, it was him.

He ILLEGALLY created a case for war against Iraq. He blatantly lied to both the people and the UN. This of course was found out only after the fact. Not to mention that, as I said, there was no declaration of war, which means that Bush was in violation of a UN charter as well, since one cannot just invade a country without such a declaration, especially if they're a UN member.

Then he covered up contractor abuses in this conflict, as well as misappropriated, ie handed out illegally, millions if not billions of dollars to his buddies. Lot's of people, those who were already rich, made a ton of money off of that "war." He also lied about the number of US troops that had been killed, but again this was only proven after the fact.

Then he lied to Congress and the US public about the threat of Iran. He played it up like they were a huge threat to us, when they weren't. And THEN he supported TERRORIST organizations within Iran, with the hope that they would overthrow the government. Again, illegally.

He didn't comply with Congressional subpoenas. He lied about Medicare in an attempt to abolish it. Failed to respond to any intelligence regarding 9/11, probably because he had some involvement, although that hasn't been proven. Then there was the Katrina fiasco. There are probably tons of things I am still leaving out.

Now again, I put your own question to you. And not only that, but how can the right complain about Obama when they all supported Bush and all this crap he did? I know why. It is about party affiliations. Your qualms with Obama have nothing to do with right and wrong. It has everything to do with political affiliations. The right is so transparent it is laughable. Maybe if the right hadn't supported spending all this money overseas, the US wouldn't have had to deal with all of the economic problems we had...Which by the way, the right had a big hand in as well.

reply to post by benrl

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.

Nice. Put your own spin on a simple statement ... and attack. You should be ashamed of yourself for addressing me in this manner.

There's no question of political ideology here. If I used your tactics, I would ask you which office you're planning to run for.

There's no fine line separating ethical and moral values. It is a vague line. You couldn't make up your mind on a political ideology, realized how mistaken you were for throwing your hat in the ring, changed your mind, took off your blinders, and now you 'believe' you see. Let me ask you this: How does one explain to a man born blind, what blindness is ... and expect the blind guy to have the exact same understanding you have of his affliction?

reply to post by Snarl


Sorry to chime in, but I think the main core issue with the left/right system is that they both serve the same agenda and only share differences that keep them appearing to be opposites by utilizing the purposeful tactic of causing division. The division is almost completely on social issues the government will never be able to fully fix. (like the abortion debate, racism etc) Meanwhile, bills like the patriot act and countless others keep getting passed, refined and refined again under our noses by different presidents from both parties.

The "two party" effort to keep grassroots non PAC supported or third party (why not 4 or 5? Surely we all have differences, why does it have to be only 2?) candidates out of the question is now evident on a level never seen before. There is corruption at the very top and by a select group and we aren't invited to the party. The U.S. is ran by lobbyists and special interest groups who have no interest in you or I. Their only interest is to keep printing $ and continue doing anything they want while we all argue about things like Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman because our media puts these things out like candy. This is the deception of the "differences" between the parties. These are the things the population cares about, not things like the Federal Reserve and an inevitable coming collapse.

I do understand that it may seem..."snobbish" by some on here passing the "sheeple" judgement on to those who don't see it this way, but to many it's been a never ending and very corrupted game of BS from both sides. Any attempt to expose it and you're a "wack job", and they make damn sure to get that message out.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus

He ILLEGALLY created a case for war against Iraq. He blatantly lied to both the people and the UN.

Indeed Someone IS LYING

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:

Yeah let's recap:

According to the summary by President Clinton, the bill was intended to establish federal criminal jurisdiction over acts of international terrorism.[5] 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. [3] Another source of opposition was the Government's ability to use evidence from secret sources in deportation proceedings for suspected terrorists. [3] 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.

en.wikipedia.org...

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

www.aclu.org...

"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."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Oh and FISA was created back in the 70s by Carter:

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).[1] The law does not apply outside the United States. It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now again, I put your own question to you. And not only that, but how can the left complain about Bush when they all supported Obama and all this crap he did? I know why. It is about party affiliations.

Fixed for accuracy.

nwtrucker
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.
That's American capitalism at it's most obscene. Even Obamacare is catering to the insurance corporate thieves. That's not socialism...sheesh!

There must be another reason the Right wing hates him so much!

reply to post by olaru12

How can Obama be a socialist when he is in the pocket of the Corporate Oligarchy and the military/industrial complex they represent.

Rather easily since he is in the pocket of the WELFARE industrial complex he claims to abhor.

The socialist part is who pays for it, since no one is.

Step right up get your free fiat currency and corporate products vote Obama.

By robbing from one group, and give to another group.

That's how.

reply to post by neo96


Is it socialist for our taxdollars to be used to prop up banks, corporate grants, Oil company subsidies? I know you wanted to include them as well, as the social welfare recipients.

I think the appropriate definition for the system we live under has been accurately described as a Kleptocracy.

reply to post by olaru12

Is it socialist for our taxdollars to be used to prop up banks,

You tell me:

www.rooseveltinstitute.org...

orporate grants, Oil company subsidies

The Hard Truth: Even Liberals are Big Fans of Oil Subsidies

Socialist?

If the shoe fits.

Since the WELFARE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX is the leading cause of US debt.

IF a person thinks it is governments job to pay for their existence in this world.

Yeah.

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...

reply to post by Wookiep

Sorry to chime in

Don't be. ATS is one of the only sites I've ever come across where open dialogue is practiced by the majority of participants. This is a polarizing topic and I realize diametrically opposing viewpoints are going to come out. What I DON'T expect is to be personally attacked by a respected member of this community. I've been steaming all morning and my opinion of one person may be permanently flushed.

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?

I'm going to take your question at face value and answer, for myself, before reading any replies and your responses to them.

I consider myself a Social Democrat so that makes me left of center. There are areas that I'd consider myself conservative but in an old fashioned definition as "conserving resources". All resources including human and environmental.

You ask about President Obama and I've never considered him a leftist whatsoever. His actions are far from 'left' and I think his actions and methods are continuing down the authoritarian path of the 'Unitary Executive' started some decades back. Each President, since Jimmy Carter, has been another step towards Authoritarianism.

And that is the problem, in my opinion, not the left or the right, but Authoritrianism. On the left we see Stalinism/Chinese Marxism and on the Right we have classic fascisim and the Unitied States' (along with many near allies) march to 'Unitary Executive'.

I believe in representative democracy with a government that is representative of individual people and not corporate persons.

I do believe that collective ownership in many areas - most notibily utilities (includin banking) and health and education should be publically funded (by taxation and fees) and administered and all proceeds owned by We The People.

No one should have the power to 'close off all rail traffic into New York City' (as JP Morgan (I think) is so lauded for) to force their 'wishes' on others.

Authoritarian Right and Authoritarian Left are both dehumanizing and I hope everyone agrees with that assesment (but, well...)

The question you are asking is an economic one, it is on the spectrum of 'ownership' or 'property rights'. On the left public ownership with production for use and the other extreme is private ownership with production of profit.

We have examples from history of each leg of that spectrum and neither seems to work in and of itself. We need to restore the commons with 'production for use' (of all people) and do away with 'production for profit' (for a few).

I guess I'm a left leaning Libertarian.

The real question of Left and Right is economic Everything privately owned or Everything publically own.

nwtrucker
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...

I only referred to you to the facts of Obama's Executive Orders of 2013. If you didn't find them to be the horrible tyrannical Constitution-shredding acts that someone has told you that they are ... then maybe you should question where you got that information from.

I didn't ask you to be an academic. The summary page I directed you to was probably less than 500 words total. I'm sorry that you want to get your information processed for you by the media machine of your choice.

The Executive Branch (the President, the Cabinet, federal agencies, etc.) administers and executes the law that is put in place by the Legislative Branch (Congress). That means, simply, that the Executive designs and administers the programs that were constituted and permitted and funded by ACA. The President can make decisions, just as every President has, about the most effective ways to implement those programs. Every President has done this. I would guess that what your sources are screeching about fall within this well-precedented area of executive action.

reply to post by tridentblue


Heck, most tea party types, my closest "cubbyhole", is not happy with either party. Isn't that generally known.

Republicans are running into massive problems in their primaries from conservatives.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself on this but there is no doubt that a huge portion of the republican base has had it with the lip-service conservatism and lack of pushback against Obama and Co....if anything more guilty than the Dems.

I don't buy into the mantra of there all the same. That's crap as well. Different weaknesses, same result.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Ok, a fast talking lawyer/academic/activist has raised doubts in me regarding the original question's validity.

So I amend it..." does anyone on the left see any downside to Obama's direct changing of the A.C.A. without congressional approval, be it Constitutional or not, or do you support him outright?"

I'm getting a headache...

reply to post by nwtrucker


I'm not any of those things, if you're talking about me ... I'm a real estate broker and resort manager. LOL.

I don't agree with the ACA. I think it's an abortion. Our modern partisan politics took the basic idea (which was a good one) and turned it into the horrendous-sewn-together monster that is the program. The Obama Administration is a LAUGHING STOCK for the ludicrous implementation of it's (so far) key piece of legislation. There is no excuse at this point in time for that kind of incompetence.

HOWEVER, the President and the Executive does have the right to implement the laws passed by the Legislative. If that implementation is improper (unConstitutional) the matter is brought to the Judicial Branch for rectification.

So, yes, Obama is within the purview of his office to do what he's done with the ACA.

There. Happy? LOL

EDIT: I've looked, I can't find the 16 changes number. I found 19 in an article at Politifact ... see if this answers your question Trucker.
Politifact

reply to post by Gryphon66


Thank you!! My headache just went away. LOL.

Clearly, your better educated/read than me and you've opened interesting questions that I need to clarify for myself.

I seem to have mixed two questions without realizing it. His arbitraries with the A.C.A. and his announced plans to use E.O's to further his political ambitions. This was unintended.

Help me with one question, if you would. How were these changes to the A.C.A. implemented? E.O.s or not?