Obama Threatens To Veto Now That Congress Works |
||
|
Obama threatens to veto now that Congress works
Or invest it properly, but if one's that lucky, starting off with a higher amount would only hit them there sooner, or allow them to take bigger risks.
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Garuda.Chanti said: » Quote: Obama threatens to veto now that Congress works Hey thanks for the bump kingnobody. Though I wouldn't call it insanity. I would call it a Awakening. Because you got to be crazy if you think Republicans and Democrats are working in the peoples best interests. It's always business as usual every time there elected. Thanks mate KB thinks our politicians represent us rather than the big money that pays them? That's adorably cute and naive. It's like he doesn't know politicians literally spend 4-8 hours of their day calling up rich people and begging for money.
Bismarck.Ihina said: » KB thinks our politicians represent us rather than the big money that pays them? That's adorably cute and naive. It's like he doesn't know politicians literally spend 4-8 hours of their day calling up rich people and begging for money. Is it? Is it representative, Chaosx, or are you just trying to propagate a weak narrative via repetition?
You don't need conspiracy theories to determine that Congress sucks. I think that's the point a few people are trying to get at. Yes, politicians are beholden to the big money makers, but they also try to get reelected and therefore are beholden to the voters they supposedly represent. As is almost always the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle and there's no need to fight over extremes.
It's not like they can just lie to their voters to get votes or anything.
There's also the fact that 90+% of the time, whoever spends more money on their election wins. I ask anyone here this: Have you actually read any of the bills proposed, voted on, and/or passed by members of Congress?
I'm not talking about what MSN, CNN, NBC, or Fox tells you, I'm talking about the actual bills itself. Yes, there are some pet projects there, like using federal funds to build a specific state's infrastructure, or using federal funds to grant money to a specific "green" company, but most of it is actually policy and is designed (in the mind of the drafter) to enhance the public good. That doesn't mean that the bills are good for the country, but the intent is there. I'm going to guarantee that nobody, except myself and maybe 1 other person who posts on this website, has ever read a bill before. All people here talk about is a perceptive glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance over somebody else's glance of the actual reading of a bill. Having that many viewpoints before you actually look at it not only skews the bill, but also creates the illusion that members of Congress are only out for somebody else (usually donors to their campaign), and not for the people who elected them, which in most cases does not include you. That is why I challenge anyone here to actually read a bill from start to finish and give a first hand accounting of what that bill states, and somebody else do the same for both the same bill and for a different one. I know nobody is going to do it, because you have to A) be smart enough to actually understand it, and 90% of the posters here aren't even that intelligent by the looks of their posts, and B) have the patience to actually read the entire bill, some of which can expand more than 100 pages of pure fluff. Bismarck.Ihina said: » It's not like they can just lie to their voters to get votes or anything. There's also the fact that 90+% of the time, whoever spends more money on their election wins. Why is that? Do all those signs on the side of the road change people's minds? Do people vote based on 30 second radio ads? Do people vote for the shiniest bus? Elected government are reprentative of the people alright. Dsyfunctional. We have gotten exactly what we voted for. Ragnarok.Harpunnik said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » It's not like they can just lie to their voters to get votes or anything. There's also the fact that 90+% of the time, whoever spends more money on their election wins. Why is that? Do all those signs on the side of the road change people's minds? Do people vote based on 30 second radio ads? Do people vote for the shiniest bus? Elected government are reprentative of the people alright. Dsyfunctional. We have gotten exactly what we voted for. Why bother attacking Ted Cruz if you live in California or New York? Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ragnarok.Harpunnik said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » It's not like they can just lie to their voters to get votes or anything. There's also the fact that 90+% of the time, whoever spends more money on their election wins. Why is that? Do all those signs on the side of the road change people's minds? Do people vote based on 30 second radio ads? Do people vote for the shiniest bus? Elected government are reprentative of the people alright. Dsyfunctional. We have gotten exactly what we voted for. Why bother attacking Ted Cruz if you live in California or New York? Because Ted Cruz went to Washington with the sole purpose of disrupting the Senate with his circus sideshow. His moronic publicity stunts cost legislative time, causing a lot of good bills to die. On top of that, he's a guy, born in Canada and bought by billionaires, calling others un-American and talking about the little guy. Just because you can't see through his exceptionally thin facade doesn't mean the rest of the country isn't tired of yahoos getting sent to congress by yahoos in the sticks. Odin.Jassik said: » Because Ted Cruz went to Washington with the sole purpose of disrupting the Senate with his circus sideshow. His moronic publicity stunts cost legislative time, causing a lot of good bills to die. On top of that, he's a guy, born in Canada and bought by billionaires, calling others un-American and talking about the little guy. Just because you can't see through his exceptionally thin facade doesn't mean the rest of the country isn't tired of yahoos getting sent to congress by yahoos in the sticks. ![]() Side note: Same could be said about Reid and Pelosi. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ragnarok.Harpunnik said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » It's not like they can just lie to their voters to get votes or anything. There's also the fact that 90+% of the time, whoever spends more money on their election wins. Why is that? Do all those signs on the side of the road change people's minds? Do people vote based on 30 second radio ads? Do people vote for the shiniest bus? Elected government are reprentative of the people alright. Dsyfunctional. We have gotten exactly what we voted for. Why bother attacking Ted Cruz if you live in California or New York? By that logic I'm hardly ever responsible since my politicians hardly ever win. Also last time I checked we all vote for President and VP. Once again we are very accurately represented in DC. Divided and self serving. Sounds like humans to me. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Because Ted Cruz went to Washington with the sole purpose of disrupting the Senate with his circus sideshow. His moronic publicity stunts cost legislative time, causing a lot of good bills to die. On top of that, he's a guy, born in Canada and bought by billionaires, calling others un-American and talking about the little guy. Just because you can't see through his exceptionally thin facade doesn't mean the rest of the country isn't tired of yahoos getting sent to congress by yahoos in the sticks. ![]() Side note: Same could be said about Reid and Pelosi. Ted Cruz has said publicly that he didn't go to DC to make friends, he went to disrupt. And you're the one who brought up Ted Cruz, so we're talking about Cruz. Ragnarok.Harpunnik said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » It's not like they can just lie to their voters to get votes or anything. There's also the fact that 90+% of the time, whoever spends more money on their election wins. Why is that? Do all those signs on the side of the road change people's minds? Do people vote based on 30 second radio ads? Do people vote for the shiniest bus? Elected government are reprentative of the people alright. Dsyfunctional. We have gotten exactly what we voted for. So yea, its more stupidity not dysfunction of the system itself. However, how we decide runoffs in louisiana is entirely dysfunctional in itself. If candidates win the vote with the majority of the votes: they win the *** vote, not requiring 50% of the vote or "Whelp, looks like the population is undecided.gotta do a runoff!". Also, when a candidate doesnt actually come out to address the public whether it be for appearances, a debate, or even to dispel accusations, Thats sketchy as *** to me. Like, if you say you want to serve the people and save them from The Obama, how are you not going to actually interact with your constituents? Ragnarok.Harpunnik said: » By that logic I'm hardly ever responsible since my politicians hardly ever win. Also last time I checked we all vote for President and VP. Once again we are very accurately represented in DC. Divided and self serving. Sounds like humans to me. Odin.Jassik said: » Ted Cruz has said publicly that he didn't go to DC to make friends, he went to disrupt. Yet you made a thread specifically about Obama being bad because he didn't go to Washington to make friends but went to upset the status quo...
Odin.Jassik said: » Yet you made a thread specifically about Obama being bad because he didn't go to Washington to make friends but went to upset the status quo... Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Not only is that well within the president's powers, it's what people like me have been saying for years. Only a partisan hack like you could find a way to make the actual purpose of the president seem corrupted by Obama. I for one embrace the notion that Obama will be held accountable for once in his presidential career, now that Reid no longer has the ability to shelve any bills that the House passes, like he has been doing for the past 4 years. Now that Obama is finally held accountable, all the GOP would have to do is paint the next liberal presidential candidate as Obama 2.0 and it would be an easy victory for the next Republican candidate. So, where again did I "make a thread specifically about Obama being bad" again? I'm just glad that Obama will now be held accountable for bills being passed or vetoed, instead of letting Reid block it for him. Reread the thread title and source article, if you still don't understand it, look at the amount of people who liked my response to it. Introspection isn't your strongsuit, so it's understandable.
Hillary will win next, so before you worry about Obama 2.0 let's look forward to Clinton 2.0 of which I think either is a good thing. Jeb is bush 3.0 and that scares the s**t out of me...
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ragnarok.Harpunnik said: » By that logic I'm hardly ever responsible since my politicians hardly ever win. Also last time I checked we all vote for President and VP. Once again we are very accurately represented in DC. Divided and self serving. Sounds like humans to me. Because up and moving, likely to a new state, upsetting your family and job is so easy? This isn't a FFXI server transfer. Also: Odin.Jassik said: » Reread the thread title and source article, if you still don't understand it, look at the amount of people who liked my response to it. Introspection isn't your strongsuit, so it's understandable. Or do you really believe that you aren't a partisan hack, like you accused me of being? All I did was to point out that Obama finally has to work and be held accountable for bills he has to either veto or sign into law, instead of letting Reid do all the work for him. Since, you know, the common misconception is that the House is the one not doing anything, even though it's the Senate Majority Leader who's keeping the bills from being brought to discussion and taking the next step in the legislative process... That is different than the GOP holding back funding on bills that have been passed how?
http://www.ice-news.net/2014/11/19/hey-gop-use-the-power-of-the-purse-strings/ http://americaswatchtower.com/2014/10/28/mitch-mcconnell-claims-republicans-will-use-the-power-of-the-purse-strings-to-stop-barack-obama-from-implementing-amnesty-through-executive-order-if-they-win-the-senate/ Lakshmi.Eyrhika said: » Because up and moving, likely to a new state, upsetting your family and job is so easy? Either move to a district that suits your political viewpoints, or change the political viewpoints in your district. Since it is highly unlikely that you can change the political viewpoints in your district, you are left with the one option. If you don't take it, you have no right to *** about it. Lakshmi.Eyrhika said: » That is different than the GOP holding back funding on bills that have been passed how? Oh wai.... Asura.Kingnobody said: » Sorry, but hypocrites liking a hypocritical post isn't exactly helping you much, you know that, right? Or do you really believe that you aren't a partisan hack, like you accused me of being? All I did was to point out that Obama finally has to work and be held accountable for bills he has to either veto or sign into law, instead of letting Reid do all the work for him. Since, you know, the common misconception is that the House is the one not doing anything, even though it's the Senate Majority Leader who's keeping the bills from being brought to discussion and taking the next step in the legislative process... Just like your little *** altima auto-liking your posts never helps you? Killing bad bills is going to be just as effortless for Obama as it was for Reid, assuming of course they even make it to his desk, which at this rate is a big assumption. Day 1749: Still can't correctly use the word 'hypocrite'.
Shiva.Viciousss said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Sorry, but hypocrites liking a hypocritical post isn't exactly helping you much, you know that, right? Or do you really believe that you aren't a partisan hack, like you accused me of being? All I did was to point out that Obama finally has to work and be held accountable for bills he has to either veto or sign into law, instead of letting Reid do all the work for him. Since, you know, the common misconception is that the House is the one not doing anything, even though it's the Senate Majority Leader who's keeping the bills from being brought to discussion and taking the next step in the legislative process... Just like your little *** altima auto-liking your posts never helps you? Killing bad bills is going to be just as effortless for Obama as it was for Reid, assuming of course they even make it to his desk, which at this rate is a big assumption. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Day 1749: Still can't correctly use the word 'hypocrite'. Looks like he is using it correctly enough. He said it and all of the sudden they start appearing in mass! I'd "lol" but Vic would get mad and never post on this subject again. Why get mad when we can all just laugh at your idiocy? I enjoyed how you asked about what happened to a thread that you derailed, as if everyone (other than you) didn't already know.
Shiva.Viciousss said: » Why get mad when we can all just laugh at your idiocy? I enjoyed how you asked about what happened to a thread that you derailed, as if everyone (other than you) didn't already know. Yup, I derailed that thread all by myself with a five word comment. Thanks for pointing out my influence over everyone. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||