This is why i'm proud to be an american

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fire2box

Est. Contributor
Messages
10,934
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
Did you see all those sources the website gave!! Oh that's right they didn't list any source information therefor they didn't prove what they are claiming. Its exactly like some people here calling Deeker a pedophile yet when they are asked for proof they offer none whatsoever.

Really when you claim something put up the evidence for it please.
 

Eulogy

ADISC Moderator
Staff
Messages
1,483
Role
Adult Baby, Babyfur
Well, Bush didn't make the law(He can suggest it to a congressman as can any citizen), but he could have vetoed it...still not a good move though, guess I can't say I'm surprised though
 

bdb2004

Est. Contributor
Messages
272
Role
Other
Actually while Bush can not make laws, the executive branch does have a broad rule-making authority due to laws passed by congress which this article is referring to. This is basically because Congress realizes that it can't pass laws for every little thing so they choose to delegate that power to the executive branch, however, what that article fails to mention is that it is just that, a delegation of power. This means that if Congress feel that the rules being enacted by the administration are horrendous then it can act to reverse those when it chooses. Also, to be fair, the Obama administration can also eventually reverse these rules, they just have to allow for a certain amount of "public review" time for comments and the like, basically I feel this article is really making a big deal about nothing, but the Guardian isn't exactly a paper that is known for its kind treatment of Bush.

Of course the other way a President can make rules is through Executive Orders, however those can be reversed immediately after Mr. Obama takes the Oath of Office so you probably won't see anyone making a big deal out of those.

As far as some of the rules, they might be unpopular, but I doubt you will see many dramatic effects since the environmental issues are long term projects and I doubt people will invest in them if they feel the Obama administration will reverse the rules as soon as possible, or congress might act even sooner to do so. As far as the health care issue allowing health care providers to opt-out of providing treatment in cases of moral or ethical conflict, is this really such a bad thing? As long as the provider directs the patient towards someone who would be willing to perform the procedure, and it is not an emergent issue, in which case there would be other federal laws requiring the health care team to treat the patient, is any harm done? While we all want the patient to receive the treatment they require, that should not be done at the cost of the health care provider having to always abandon their moral and ethical beliefs.
 

Grutzvalt

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,378
Role
Adult Baby
Did you see all those sources the website gave!! Oh that's right they didn't list any source information therefor they didn't prove what they are claiming. Its exactly like some people here calling Deeker a pedophile yet when they are asked for proof they offer none whatsoever.

Really when you claim something put up the evidence for it please.
He owns the site. By most people's definition, the crap put on his site is very pedoish. Thats proof. If you say it isn't, then let me ask you what made MFH a pedo...Exactly.
 

Shen

Est. Contributor
Messages
330
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur
He owns the site. By most people's definition, the crap put on his site is very pedoish. Thats proof. If you say it isn't, then let me ask you what made MFH a pedo...Exactly.
...? really?
That doesn't prove anything. What MFH did first of all doesn't mean he is a pedophile. There was things that he did that suggested he was attracted to children, but nothing that proved it. As for deeker. It's the same. Just because he condones the material on his website. That isn't proof that he is attracted to children.
 

Maxicoon

Est. Contributor
Messages
651
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Sissy, Little
there's an old rule believe nothing that you hear, and only half of what you see. this applies more than ever to the internet.
 

Fire2box

Est. Contributor
Messages
10,934
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
there's an old rule believe nothing that you hear, and only half of what you see. this applies more than ever to the internet.
sort of like I can say "Kite is a pedophile."

I have just listed as much sources as the link Kite gave out has. So that must mean Kite is a pedophile. At least to Kite and Korey or anyone else who believes this without needing to see proof. (this was to make a point and I of course don't mean any of it.)
 

Yawnie

Est. Contributor
Messages
858
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Buck Fush! Sadly, this will only degrade the global image of the US even more then it already is.......
 

FluffyFluffers

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,028
Role
Babyfur, Sissy
Executive order.

A regulation by the President of the United States or the chief executive of a state which has the effect of law.


Oh wow he can make a law basically.
 

Lil Snap

Contributor
Messages
1,064
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
America SUCKS
You know, Canada isn't exactly a paragon of global integrity.

wut? Can we say Stephen Harper? Michaelle Jean ?

Please don't throw stones, it just gives the enemy more ammo.

And look here for a less inflammatory view of the process. EVERY president has used "midnight regulations", EVERY president has complained about it.
 

Dawes

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,805
Role
Diaper Lover
Let's dissect these supposedly awful "midnight regulations" whose purpose is specifically to "undermine the administration of Barack Obama."

• Make it easier for coal companies to dump waste from strip-mining into valleys and streams.
I don't really see how things can get "easier" in this regard. Maybe it will give them more legal opportunities to do so; maybe it will provide them the means by which to do so through government funding. Otherwise, if a law by the president says, "Hey, it's now easier to dump your trash in a river," I'll say, "Well, that's good, but it's always been easy to dump my trash in the river as long as I can put my fucking shoes on my feet!"

• Ease the building of coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks.
Again, the use of the word "ease" is ridiculous. Building a coal-fired power station is not easy, and nothing written in the lawbooks is going to make it easier. Building them near national parks? Look on the bright side, at least it's not nuclear power.

• Allow people to carry loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.
"Oh my God, there's been a shooting in Yellowstone park!" Gang-wars don't regularly go down in parks, from what I learned. It's already within our laws to have permits for concealed carrying... and that gives people with a permit to carry a concealed weapon the right to bring it on a national park. What a waste of a sentence.

• Open up millions of acres to mining for oil shale.
Okay. So? Drilling for oil and how to do it differs between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans want to do it differently than Democrats. There are about three weeks left in this Republican administration. Where is the moral inadequacy of this decision?

• Allow healthcare workers to opt out of giving treatment for religious or moral reasons, thus weakening abortion rights.
Unless you're retarded or dead, you realize that this is already happening. There are specific doctors who will not give permission for abortion procedures, plastic surgery, or a thousand-and-one things because it goes against their own moral compass. You know what? That's great, because I don't want someone who doesn't believe in what I'm doing to my body to perform the surgery. This has been going on for years, and will continue to do so. Making it a lawful decision means less heartache for the doctor, less possibility of malpractice, and more business for doctors who specialize in these otherwise undesired practices ... meaning that, in a business sense, it liberates them to be a more open and valid form of medical attention.

• Hurt road safety by allowing truck drivers to stay at the wheel for 11 consecutive hours.
Road safety already sucks. I've known two truck-drivers in my time, one being my father, and one having been a family friend. They drove for anywhere from 14 to 16 hours a day, regardless of what their mileage charts said. Why? Because they wanted to be home with their families. The 8 on, 8 off rule is bullshit -- this just gives the drivers more lawful flexibility to do what they've always been doing.

All in all, I'm not sure what parts of any of those "midnight regulations" specifically "undermine the administration of Barack Obama." What I see when I read that article is a biased, even insulting and derogatory piece of opinionated non-journalism that seeks to stretch out and make a big deal out of bullshit.

If this is what makes or breaks your pride as an American, 1) get out of the country, or 2) grab a history book and read up on what makes a country a country, and that it's not always the good stuff that does so.

Or at least link a valid article.
 

Charlie

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,448
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Carer, Other
sort of like I can say "Kite is a pedophile."
No you couldn't... or at least Paul Harris in that article couldn't have because that would just be libel...

If you want evidence why don't you contact the The Observer and ask for it? The fact that I don't see the phrase "according to X" or "it is alleged that..." makes me think that they certainly do have proof! You can't just write and publish lies without any proof, in Britain at least.


As for the Deeker is a paedophile stuff, well this thread isn't about that. I don't personally have proof of it, I haven't bothered look. I think Koko has evidence though.
 

recovery

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,234
Role
Other
If you want evidence why don't you contact the The Observer and ask for it? The fact that I don't see the phrase "according to X" or "it is alleged that..." makes me think that they certainly do have proof! You can't just write and publish lies without any proof, in Britain at least.
It's called hearsay evidence. Or just plain rumours really. You can't just take some ones word for it. There has to be atleast multiple reports on it for there to be a bit of coherence between them.

Then again, I won't be surprised if something like this did happen. I simply don't trust bush or many politicians for that matter.
 

MysteriousVisitor

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,214
Role
Diaper Lover
Arn't we kinda looking at the bee and ignoring the nest? Barack Obama will have unlimited* power in a month. He can undo anything and everything Bush has ever done.

This scares me a little, actually. Not Barack Obama, but some of his supporters. I've been reading through the comments on Change.gov, and while there are many logical and worthwhile comments, some are just plain absurd. Giving everyone $100,000? Ordering automakers to stop making ICE vehicles? Reinstituting the fairness doctrine? Some are lulz.

Anyway, Obama will have his power in a month. I don't think new evil coal powerplants will be built, or Gangs of Yellowstone will be formed.
 

Lil Snap

Contributor
Messages
1,064
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Other
Anyway, Obama will have his power in a month. I don't think new evil coal powerplants will be built, or Gangs of Yellowstone will be formed.
Ah gots mah gun, and mah tricycle, where do I join??:laugh:
 

bdb2004

Est. Contributor
Messages
272
Role
Other
Executive order.

A regulation by the President of the United States or the chief executive of a state which has the effect of law.


Oh wow he can make a law basically.
Well kinda, but the only time they really will have the force of law is if the Executive Order was issued in compliance with a grant of power by congress to the executive in an earlier piece off legislation, otherwise it is closer to "guidance" to members of the executive branch, which, if they dont follow, could result in termination. Also, remember while some of them might have the force of law, if congress can manage to pass a new law, and override the likely veto, that executive order will not supersede the congressional action. Furthermore, once the Executive changes the new Executive can change any previous EO's at his desire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top