Previous 11 - 20 Next
The "checks" on a lawless president are for Congress to cut off the funding for whatever he's doing, or remove him from office. House Republicans are too afraid of the treatment they'll get in the press for "shutting down the government", to refuse funding until the Democrats understand that they aren't going to get what they want, however long they wait, and take what is offered. Getting 67 votes in the Senate, to remove him from office, is politically impossible when no partisan Democrat would vote against him, regardless of what he's done. The checks are there, but politics prevents their use.
Moron 102, The amnesty bill that Reagan signed was the result of a bargain between him and the Democrats who controlled Congress at that time. In return for him allowing the Democrats to pass their amnesty, they had promised to rewrite immigration law to remove the incentives for illegal immigration and set up a strict enforcement mechanism, putting an end to large-scale illegal immigration. Reagan, and the rest of us, are still waiting for the lying Democrats to honor their commitment.
It's certainly true that none of these things (and countless others) have worked out to the benefit of the country,or the general public, but what evidence is there that they were ever intended to?
In response to:

It’s Real: GlobalChange.Gov

Anthony305 Wrote: Jun 12, 2014 9:24 AM
I knew there had to be more reasons to despise the first Bush (along with the savings & loan bailout, Agenda 21, ADA, tax increases, reducing the military, etc.). Makes me glad I voted for Perot; if jerk politicians are going to ruin the country anyway, it should, at least, be ones I didn't vote for.
In response to:

Libertarians Versus Conservatives

Anthony305 Wrote: Jun 11, 2014 4:14 PM
Stossel is right about most things, most of the time, but not this. The libertarian view of military and foreign policy just doesn't conform to reality. We can't, and shouldn't, be the world's policeman in every instance, but there are problems that have to be dealt with before they turn in to major disasters, and we are sucked into them anyway and have to deal with them under much more unfavorable conditions, and at much greater cost. Iran is such a problem. It should have been dealt with ten years ago, when it would have been relatively cheap and easy to stop its nuclear program. Eventually we are going to be forced to do something about this, and the longer we wait, the more difficult and costly the solution will become.
In response to:

The Prisoner Swap Deal

Anthony305 Wrote: Jun 10, 2014 6:50 PM
Obama wants to empty the prison at Guantanamo and shut it down. He really doesn't give a damn where the terrorists go, or what they do, if he can claim a PR victory.
The answer to the question is quite simple: the Republican leadership is protecting its own power; they don't want any Republican in public office that they can't control. They can't sell their influence to the major donors who fund the party establishment, unless they control enough votes to have something to sell.
Money can't always buy an election, but it surely helps, and most of the time (at least in races close enough to be a real contest) it wins. The way to reduce the amount of money in politics, and benefit the country at the same time, is to drastically reduce both the powers and the money available to government. If there is less that government can do to you, or for you, and less money available for them to hand out to their supporters, there is less return on the money invested to influence politicians, or their parties; they're not worth bribing, if they can't produce more benefit than they cost. Campaign finance laws cannot remove money from politics, only redirect it. As long as politicians have favors to sell, there will be buyers. The present campaign finance laws were pushed through Congress by party leaders because they divert campaign contributions from individual candidates, to party organizations, committees, PACs, etc. Under the present system, the big-money donors can just buy the party (rather than individual candidates), and let the party leaders manage their Congressmen, Senators, etc. The party leaders love this, because it gives them more power to control their elected officials, by controlling who gets enough money to run a successful campaign (plus a bigger pot of money to steal from).
I can't agree with Barr about the incompetent part. These people may have been incompetent when it came to doing their jobs, as one would expect them to be done, but they (and the rest of Obama's appointees) were put in their positions to carry Obama's program into effect, not to run their agencies for the public good. When looking at the real reason they were appointed, they performed admirably, and resigned only to protect Obama from being held responsible for their actions (which, if he didn't directly order, he certainly approved of).
"He knows he's a failure already"? And what would lead one to believe that? He and his appointees, in every agency of government, are advancing socialism and state control of everything and everyone, in thousands of ways (many of which, we are not yet aware of). Unless there is a purge of the Republican leadership, they aren't going to even try to reverse what Obama has done, should they come to power (as W not only failed to undo Clinton's movement of government in the same direction, but extended it). We need a different sort of people in charge of government (who will devote their energy to dismantling most of the tyrannical, unaffordable structure of government, that's been built over the last hundred years). Otherwise, the next leftist administration will finish the job; if Obama can't "transform" us into North Korea in the next two and a half years, he will have left a structure in place for his successors to do it.
Zuckerberg and his wife, evidently, are not educated enough to see that they're throwing their money away for nothing. In today's circumstances, money has nothing to do with education. Public schools, colleges, etc. have far more money than necessary; they're just spending it in ways that contribute nothing to education (the plague of unnecessary administrators and counselors, for instance). The present system, with schools of education, government bureaucracy and teachers unions that are focused more on social and political indoctrination and crackpot teaching methods, than actually imparting useful information, is a disaster. What is needed is a return to the teaching methods and curriculum of eighty, or a hundred years ago, and teachers who are, themselves, educated in the subjects they are supposed to be teaching.
Previous 11 - 20 Next