Paraphrasing here, but i heard a snippet w/ Bobby Jindal today on Special report -- it was unclear if the quote was from a Fox interview or if the segment came from an another interview -- but he was relating a conversation he'd had w/ Obama regarding the moratorium on drilling: Obama said, "don't sweat it, these people can get a check from BP." Jindal: "maybe, but it's not clear BP will pay in a timely fashion, or if they all qualify." Obama: "then they can get an unemployment check" Jindal: "Americans don't want a check, they want to work" again, paraphrasing, but can there be a better example of the disconnect between this admin and the average american, bitterly clinging to the right to work, rather than receive a handout from Uncle Barack?
Yeah. If we're asking for video, I think I'd like to see the video of the original conversation between Jindal and Obama. This sounds like the cartoon strawman version of Obama that Republicans running for office love to create, more than real Obama. I love that ad for Rick Perry with the grainy zoomed video where it claims to show him "talking tough" to Obama about border security while Perry shakes Obama's hand. This reminds me of that.
yes...the better example of a popular disconnect is future House Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX), apologizing to BP and its shareholders on behalf of the American people for the federal government having the gall to enforce its laws. Bonus 1: Spoiler it is the thing that is being referred to in this mythic tale Bonus 2: Spoiler this example has the added bonus of actually being true, rahter than a figment of the wet dreams of a random middle-aged internet ****-tard.
If BP committed a crime then they should of been taken to court and their punishment should of been handled by the judicial branch. The president doesn't bark orders at private companies and tell them what they must pay. You even use the term "enforce its law" which is the exact job description of the judicial branch.
hmmm, nah brah even many slack jawed, C-level high school civics students learn that the job of actually enforcing and implementing the law is the function of the executive branch Witnesseth: pwned by wikipedia. Sad. Tard. Sadtard. Poor sadtard. SAD FACE
Sure they do: Despite economy Americans won't take farm jobs Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - 3:07am VISALIA, Calif. (AP) - As the economy tanked during the past two years, a debate has raged over whether immigrants are taking jobs that Americans want. According to an AP poll, most Americans don't apply for jobs harvesting fruits and vegetables in California, where one of every eight people is out of work. And the few unemployed Americans who apply through official channels usually don't stay on in the fields. Since January, California farmers have posted ads for 1,160 farmworker positions open to U.S. citizens and legal residents seeking work. Only 233 people from those categories applied after learning of the jobs through unemployment offices in California, Texas, Nevada and Arizona. http://www.ketknbc.com/news/despite-economy-americans-wont-take-farm-jobs
Fall for it every time Sam. So you agree then that the job of the judicial branch is to determine if someone as broken the law? Well then obviously the president was outline punishing BP for some crime they had not been committed guilty of.
First, let's go back to the videotape, brah: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (2010): Executive Branch: The branch of the U.S. government that is composed of the president and all the individuals, agencies, and departments that report to the president, and that is responsible for administering and enforcing the laws that Congress passes. http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-government The Facebook page on the "executive branch" The role of the executive is to enforce the law as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judicial system. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Executive-branch/110814552273256 The White House: The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch Do you still stick to your earlier statement? Or do you need a refresher on what "exact job description" means..... I hope not!
Nice try Sam, but tallanvor will probably just tell you that you're defining some word wrong, even if you use a universally accepted definition.
Let me show you how Basso translates what Obama says to Basso-glish Obama: We need to create jobs Basso-glish: We need to raise the deficit and taxes and therefore destroy jobs Obama: we need to cut the deficit Basso-glish: We need to run from all wars and force woman to have abortions Obama: We need to hold companies accountable for their actions Basso-glish: we need to turn the country to a socialist state and murder more babies, as well as force everyone to have gay sex and kill all the whiteys.
That's correct. So it is not the president's job to determine if someone has broken the law or punish those that have broken the law. Thus, you agree Obama abused his power in attacking BP. So you and the previously mentioned congressman agree.
The President was making sure that BP fulfilled its obligations under the law. He did so in a nontraditional way so that the people adversely affected by BP's f***up could get reimbursed for their losses without every single case having to go through the courts. So, people like you and Joe Barton come down on the side of BP while Obama comes down on the side of We, the People. Noted.
Sam is right here. What you are completely missing is that Congress has granted the Executive regulatory power under which yes the Executive can bark orders to private companies. Leaving that aside regulatory power it is established that the government, through the Executive branch, can in times of crisis take control of private companies, such as taking over private shipping and airline transport to move troop and equipment.
So you want to bypass the courts because it is convenient? That isn't the way it works. So, people like you and Joe Barton come down on the side of BP while Obama comes down on the side of We, the People. Noted.[/QUOTE] I am on the side of American justice and the Constitution, which both say this is not the way to do things.
BP agreed to this. They had a choice to give Obama the bird and roll the die in courts. They didn't for whatever reasons, but quit crying wolf that it's some travesty to the Constitution when nothing unConstitutional has happened.
No, Obama wanted to bypass the courts because BP took away people's livelihoods, destroyed their businesses, and drastically impacted their quality of life. Court battles with an oil giant like BP would have taken years that those people did not have if they were to save their businesses and maintain a way of life that BP's f***up very nearly destroyed. I am on the side of We, the People. I am on the side of the guy who would have gotten f***ed out of any settlement at all by BP lawyers. I am on the side of the people who would have been reimbursed for their losses years after the fact and after a third of the reimbursement was leached by plaintiff's lawyers. I am on the side of the family on the Gulf Coast whose beaches were unusable, whose seafood was inedible, and whose lifestyle was severely impacted because a corporation with tens of billions of dollars in the bank wanted to cut corners on their oil rig. You are on the side of the corporation, I get it.
This is exactly right. Obama didn't just seize $20 billion from BP, he negotiated a deal that was acceptable to the company.
