• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Oblivion said:
Summary?
Click to expand...

-Hannity does a good job on his show and its important
-"I didn't say I was threatened" two minutes later "it was a coded message"
- young reporters aren't going to report in this scary and threatening reporting
- We should have investigated more into bill ayers.

Also hannity has a graphic in the corner saying "followed by 667k people" LULZ

And coluter is a blatant racist. Goddamn how can she get away saying what she does?
 
O

Owzers

Member
Hannity took personal offense to Woodward's suggestion that Fox News was partisan and Hannity had to reaffirm that Fox News is a great hard news network and Hannity's show is a MUCH NEEDED opinion piece all while Woodward nods his head in agreement negating the previous statement he made.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
OMG Keith Ellison has ties to NOI!
Secret Muslim!!!! oh wait...

Seriously going on a Mccarthisty attack now, and brings on two black guests to make sure he's not racist.
After just take a class on NOI with MHP the ignorance here is staggering.

I have to turn this off. This is blatantly racist now.
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
Talon said:
We have a better understanding of Iran's capabilities than we did with Iraq, if only from the intelligence side.
Click to expand...
And everything I've seen indicates that while Iran will soon have the capability to pursue a weapon they have not actually gone down that path at this time.

If Iran gains a weapon, Saudi Arabia will want one. Even a country as unstable as Egypt will want one as deterrent force. The fear of proliferation is, basically (there's no kind way to say this), we don't want to add more nations to the pool of nuclear powers because (a) that exposes us to more aggregate risk and (b) we don't trust an unstable government to maintain proper chain of custody of nuclear arms.
Click to expand...
I still don't see how this makes it okay or good idea to attack Iran.

Israel isn't war mongering; it's the one nationally recognized state that fights for its own existence. Iran has explicitly stated that its position is that Israel cannot and should not exist as a state. These two states can't coexist if Iran gets a nuke.
Click to expand...
How are they not warmongering? They are entirely the ones initiating aggressive action.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
APKmetsfan said:
-Hannity does a good job on his show and its important
-"I didn't say I was threatened" two minutes later "it was a coded message"
- young reporters aren't going to report in this scary and threatening reporting
- We should have investigated more into bill ayers.

Also hannity has a graphic in the corner saying "followed by 667k people" LULZ

And coluter is a blatant racist. Goddamn how can she get away saying what she does?
Click to expand...

Sounds disgusting.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
APKmetsfan said:
-Hannity does a good job on his show and its important
-"I didn't say I was threatened" two minutes later "it was a coded message"
- young reporters aren't going to report in this scary and threatening reporting
- We should have investigated more into bill ayers.

Also hannity has a graphic in the corner saying "followed by 667k people" LULZ

And coluter is a blatant racist. Goddamn how can she get away saying what she does?
Click to expand...

That sounds like bad journalism on Woodward's part. He shouldn't be making himself the story.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Talon said:
Israel isn't war mongering; it's the one nationally recognized state that fights for its own existence. Iran has explicitly stated that its position is that Israel cannot and should not exist as a state. These two states can't coexist if Iran gets a nuke.
Click to expand...
Israel isnt warmongering? Lol

Israel is the biggest warmongering rogue nation in the entire region. Already planning on striking Iran's facilities while dropping bombs on Gaza city all the while establishing illegal settlements in West Bank. If that's not warmongering, what is? Iran's position has always been whatever Palestinians accept to be it's own, which always has been pre 67 borders.

For a country the size of Israel, that's catastrophic.
Click to expand...
What about Israel's nukes, and why shouldn't Iran be concerned about Israel using them?
 
O

Owzers

Member
APKmetsfan said:
OMG Keith Ellison has ties to NOI!
Secret Muslim!!!! oh wait...

Seriously going on a Mccarthisty attack now, and brings on two black guests to make sure he's not racist.
After just take a class on NOI with MHP the ignorance here is staggering.

I have to turn this off. This is blatantly racist now.
Click to expand...

The woman on the panel talked about how Ellison doesn't want to debate with someone he doesn't agree with...all the while being on a panel with 2 other people who completely agree with each other.
 
K

kehs

Banned
So Romney has an interview that will air this weekend on fox.


“We were on a roller coaster, exciting and thrilling, ups and downs. But the ride ends," Romney told Fox News. "And then you get off. And it's not like, ‘Oh, can't we be on a roller coaster the rest of our life?’ It's like, no, the ride's over."

...

One photo even surfaced of Romney riding a roller coaster with family at Disneyland.
Click to expand...

Romney gets no breaks.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...oaster-in-first-interview-since-election?lite
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Bams going hard in
CM2EsQX.png


though he ends on this which narrows it down.
djX3Fl1.png


http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/12-144tsacUnitedStates.pdf

Also speaking of Israel
Here's a picture of Rand Paul in the dead sea

enhanced-buzz-9523-1362085044-0.jpg
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
RustyNails said:
Read it once it came out. Possibly the best onion article ever.
Click to expand...

I'd go with this one, myself. Kind of terrifying in hindsight out spot on this was. And depressing.

From January 17, 2001.

WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
Click to expand...
 
S

Synth_floyd

Banned
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.
Click to expand...

Haha
 
B

Byakuya769

Member
Cyan said:
Byakuya, maybe I shouldn't tell you this... but PoliGAF is doomed to destruction.

In less than 7000 posts, this place will be shut down... forever!

Hide your kids and load up your guns.
Click to expand...

What the fuck!?! GAF proving that it is clearly too dysfunctional for the pressing issues in front of us today!

You know we are in dire straights when a limit of 20,000 posts makes exponentially more sense than the actions of congress and their dealings with a sluggish economy.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
So the dueling sequester bills failed the Senate earlier.

Is the Republican one even constitutional? They want to give Obama discretion to make cuts where he will, but is "the president must cut $85b from the budget" that different from "the president may cut up to $85b from the budget"? The problem is that the latter is functionally a line-item veto.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Gotchaye said:
So the dueling sequester bills failed the Senate earlier.

Is the Republican one even constitutional? They want to give Obama discretion to make cuts where he will, but is "the president must cut $85b from the budget" that different from "the president may cut up to $85b from the budget"? The problem is that the latter is functionally a line-item veto.
Click to expand...

I think the bill was probably written to technically get rid of the old sequester and replace it with a new one in which the executive must cut 85$billion which is up to his discretion. I don't know how that's a line item veto.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I think the bill was probably written to technically get rid of the old sequester and replace it with a new one in which the executive must cut 85$billion which is up to his discretion. I don't know how that's a line item veto.
Click to expand...

Because giving the president authority to choose not to spend money that Congress has already authorized functions a lot like a line item veto.

Congress couldn't cheat the Court's decision by putting a line at the end of the budget that goes "the president may ignore up to $85b of spending contained herein". Is "must ignore $85b" so different? The problem is with giving the president substantial discretion in spending decisions. The whole point of the Republican bill is to abdicate responsibility for determining the appropriate spending level of various programs.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
I'd close to guarantee the House bill violates the Presentment Clause just like the '96 line-item veto. The idea is that the President cannot amend existing law and this bill lets him do just that.

The appropriations and spending cuts have been passed by law. This is a partial repeal by giving him authority to shift the cuts around. SCOTUS would easily strike it down.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Gotchaye said:
Because giving the president authority to choose not to spend money that Congress has already authorized functions a lot like a line item veto.

Congress couldn't cheat the Court's decision by putting a line at the end of the budget that goes "the president may ignore up to $85b of spending contained herein". Is "must ignore $85b" so different? The problem is with giving the president substantial discretion in spending decisions. The whole point of the Republican bill is to abdicate responsibility for determining the appropriate spending level of various programs.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from but wouldn't the fact congress is authorizing the bill and spending cuts say that they're revoking the authorization of that spending?

Black Mamba said:
I'd close to guarantee the House bill violates the Presentment Clause just like the '96 line-item veto. The idea is that the President cannot amend existing law and this bill lets him do just that.

The appropriations and spending cuts have been passed by law. This is a partial repeal by giving him authority to shift the cuts around. SCOTUS would easily strike it down.
Click to expand...

Like I said about couldn't the bill say congress is redoing the existing law (getting rid of the spending cuts, like the progressive caucus one line bill and then reintroducing the need for the 85 billion but not specifying where they come from) and replacing it? I know nothing about budget law. I need to read more into it.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I see where you're coming from but wouldn't the fact congress is authorizing the bill and spending cuts say that they're revoking the authorization of that spending?
Click to expand...

So then can Congress basically give the president almost total spending authority, limited only by some maximum amount, by passing a "the president can choose to ignore or move around up to [total amount of authorized spending] as he sees fit" bill immediately after passing a budget? Was the problem with the line item veto just that it was passed before the spending?

The problem is that the only spending cuts Congress has authorized are in the sequester. They can cancel the sequester, but they can't then pass a very vague spending cut that gives the president discretion to decide what gets cut. They aren't authorizing those cuts; they didn't know what they were when they told the president to start cutting.

The constitutional issue is that Congress is supposed to present laws to the president for an up or down decision. Some executive discretion is necessary in a lot of laws, but there's a limit. Congress can't pass a law giving the president the authority to enact any policy that could legally be enacted by Congress and the president working together. That's too much discretion. And control over the budget is one of Congress' major powers.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I see where you're coming from but wouldn't the fact congress is authorizing the bill and spending cuts say that they're revoking the authorization of that spending?



Like I said about couldn't the bill say congress is redoing the existing law (getting rid of the spending cuts, like the progressive caucus one line bill and then reintroducing the need for the 85 billion but not specifying where they come from) and replacing it? I know nothing about budget law. I need to read more into it.
Click to expand...

The Act’s cancellation procedures violate the Presentment Clause. Pp. 17-31.

(a) The Act empowers the President to cancel an “item of new direct spending” such as §4722(c) of the Balanced Budget Act and a “limited tax benefit” such as §698 of the Taxpayer Relief Act, §691(a), specifying that such cancellation prevents a provision “from having legal force or effect,” §§691e(4)(B)-(C). Thus, in both legal and practical effect, the presidential actions at issue have amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each. Statutory repeals must conform with Art. I, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954, but there is no constitutional authorization for the President to amend or repeal. Under the Presentment Clause, after a bill has passed both Houses, but “before it become a Law,” it must be presented to the President, who “shall sign it” if he approves it, but “return it,” i.e., “veto” it, if he does not. There are important differences between such a “return” and cancellation under the Act: The constitutional return is of the entire bill and takes place before it becomes law, whereas the statutory cancellation occurs after the bill becomes law and affects it only in part. There are powerful reasons for construing the constitutional silence on the profoundly important subject of presidential repeals as equivalent to an express prohibition. The Article I procedures governing statutory enactment were the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Constitution itself. Familiar historical materials provide abundant support for the conclusion that the power to enact statutes may only “be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.” Chadha, 462 U.S., at 951. What has emerged in the present cases, however, are not the product of the “finely wrought” procedure that the Framers designed, but truncated versions of two bills that passed both Houses. Pp. 17-24.
Click to expand...


Bit different situation but it's basically giving the President power to amend a portion existing law by own discretion and this isn't legal.

Now, if they passed a bill that FULLY repealed the sequester and then added a NEW sequester of $85 billion in which the President can cut from anywhere he desires, it may be legal, though it still may violate separation of powers.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Gotchaye said:
So then can Congress basically give the president almost total spending authority, limited only by some maximum amount, by passing a "the president can choose to ignore or move around up to [total amount of authorized spending] as he sees fit" bill immediately after passing a budget? Was the problem with the line item veto just that it was passed before the spending?

The problem is that the only spending cuts Congress has authorized are in the sequester. They can cancel the sequester, but they can't then pass a very vague spending cut that gives the president discretion to decide what gets cut. They aren't authorizing those cuts; they didn't know what they were when they told the president to start cutting.

The constitutional issue is that Congress is supposed to present laws to the president for an up or down decision. Some executive discretion is necessary in a lot of laws, but there's a limit. Congress can't pass a law giving the president the authority to enact any policy that could legally be enacted by Congress and the president working together. That's too much discretion. And control over the budget is one of Congress' major powers.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm not sure about the latitude congress has to give to another branch for spending decisions. I think the problem with the line item veto wasn't spending but that it authorized the president to cut apart legislation and that wasn't a power congress could give to the president.

If a bill states: The executive must cut 10 billion but in anyway he see fits I think thats a lot different than a line item veto because its still a single bill and the president isn't changing it.

Black Mamba said:
Bit different situation but it's basically giving the President power to amend a portion existing law by own discretion and this isn't legal.

Now, if they passed a bill that FULLY repealed the sequester and then added a NEW sequester of $85 billion in which the President can cut from anywhere he desires, it may be legal, though it still may violate separation of powers.
Click to expand...

Is that a quote from the bill? If so see that as unconstitutional. I figured they what they'd do would be to cancel and replace with new cuts (that were the same amount.) Though this is the House GOP....
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I guess I'm not sure about the latitude congress has to give to another branch for spending decisions. I think the problem with the line item veto wasn't spending but that it authorized the president to cut apart legislation and that wasn't a power congress could give to the president.

If a bill states: The executive must cut 10 billion but in anyway he see fits I think thats a lot different than a line item veto because its still a single bill and the president isn't changing it.
Click to expand...

The line item veto allowed the President to repeal portions of law rather than veto an entire law.

Also, I should have posted this:

In contrast, the Act at issue authorizes the President himself to effect the repeal of laws, for his own policy reasons, without observing Article I, §7, procedures. Second, the contention that the cancellation authority is no greater than the President’s traditional statutory authority to decline to spend appropriated funds or to implement specified tax measures fails because this Act, unlike the earlier laws, gives the President the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes
Click to expand...

Note that the the House bill gives the President the power to "change the text of duly enacted statues," specifically the Budget Control Act of 2011.

This is key.

Is that a quote from the bill? If so see that as unconstitutional. I figured they what they'd do would be to cancel and replace with new cuts (that were the same amount.) Though this is the House GOP....
Click to expand...


I'm quoting the syllabus from Clinton vs New York City (the line item case)


edit: regarding my idea, can they cancel and replace in the same bill? If not, and they cancel the cuts, why would Dems vote to reinstate new ones? GOP would be fucking themselves over if it takes 2 bills, lol.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I guess I'm not sure about the latitude congress has to give to another branch for spending decisions. I think the problem with the line item veto wasn't spending but that it authorized the president to cut apart legislation and that wasn't a power congress could give to the president.

If a bill states: The executive must cut 10 billion but in anyway he see fits I think thats a lot different than a line item veto because its still a single bill and the president isn't changing it.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, in light of the decision Mamba quoted. It would still be very strange to me if the Court upheld a de facto line item veto as long as Congress specifically granted spending discretion to the president. Don't they usually suggest a mechanism for doing the exact same thing in a procedurally sound way if their objection is purely procedural?
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Gotchaye said:
Maybe so, in light of the decision Mamba quoted. It would still be very strange to me if the Court upheld a de facto line item veto as long as Congress specifically granted spending discretion to the president. Don't they usually suggest a mechanism for doing the exact same thing in a procedurally sound way if their objection is purely procedural?
Click to expand...
Black Mamba said:
The line item veto allowed the President to repeal portions of law rather than veto an entire law.

Also, I should have posted this:

Note that the the House bill gives the President the power to "change the text of duly enacted statues," specifically the Budget Control Act of 2011.

This is key.
Click to expand...

I do think that if this bill was just changing existing law its unconstitutional, I just figured they'd be smarter than that.
That's what I meant but saying that the problem was that it took apart laws which wasn't allowed rather than taking them as a whole.

Black Mamba said:
edit: regarding my idea, can they cancel and replace in the same bill? If not, and they cancel the cuts, why would Dems vote to reinstate new ones? GOP would be fucking themselves over if it takes 2 bills, lol.
Click to expand...
Why can't they have 1 bill that cancels AND replaces? Is there a rule against that?
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I do think that if this bill was just changing existing law its unconstitutional, I just figured they'd be smarter than that.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the plan B debacle? lol

I don't even know if Congress cancel and reinstate the sequester in the same bill. Since the POTUS can't change existing law, Congress would have to pass a bill completely repealing the sequester. Once they do that, there's no reason for the Dems or Obama to pass a new sequester even if it gives him the ability to decide the cuts. Only way to work would be within the same bill and that seems weird, but maybe it's allowable.

The Congress can also repeal the sequester and simply ask Obama to spend less. He has the power to ignore their spending in executing the law. Could be a handshake agreement though again Obama would never go for it (how amazing would it be if he duped them, though).

And of course, there is a separation of powers issue (Congress authorizes spending, not the President) which the Court didn't touch since they answered it via another way first.

Why can't they have 1 bill that cancels AND replaces? Is there a rule against that.
Click to expand...

They might, but of course they could then change the rules. But it is a very weird idea.

"This bill repeals the sequester and creates and equal sized sequester"

Of course, part of the problem is the Congress appropriations is supposed to outline directly what is spent where, too. So I dunno if they can give the President the power to cut anywhere ever since giving cutting power would violate all the appropriation bills passed even if they cancel the sequester, now that I think about it.

Yeah, pretty sure it doesn't matter. Congress would have to completely repeal ALL appropriations for the year and put a clause in every section of the new one that says "unless the president cuts it by however he wants until total cuts equal $85 billion" or something.

Which would never happen.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Black Mamba said:
They might, but of course they could then change the rules. But it is a very weird idea.

"This bill repeals the sequester and creates and equal sized sequester"
Click to expand...

I would imagine the bill would be

Section one: this bill cancels the cuts in the budget control act of 2011

Section two: this bill requires 85 billion in cuts with the president having full (or limited) leeway in their implementation


I agree its weird but the GOP is as you pointed out not very bright.

Of course, part of the problem is the Congress appropriations is supposed to outline directly what is spent where, too. So I dunno if they can give the President the power to cut anywhere ever since giving cutting power would violate all the appropriation bills passed even if they cancel the sequester, now that I think about it.
Click to expand...
To the bolded: is this true?
To the underlined: this is true.
 
S

SouthernDragon

Member
Note that the power that the GOP is giving Obama is no power at all.

He can only choose cuts in domestic spending that don't affect the military. They are trying to fully shift this on to him.

Slimy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
7K
Agent_Nobody replied
SAW 3 | A Finale on Life Support (HyperBitHero)
Opinion
4
919
HyperBitHero replied
  • Locked
RTX 4070 TI Super for sale. Never gamed on.
1
730
LSWilson replied
Scalable games should be the standard on consoles from now on
Opinion
31
1K
GHG replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
1K
dragonyeuw replied
Top Bottom