Shryke Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Most American history is heavily revised. A good thing to remember as we come up on Thanksgiving and celebrate the founding myths. As a non-american, it's creepy that you have those. The only thing I know about our founding fathers is the longstanding rumour that our first PM was a raging alcoholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Minsc,But his influence was almost universally terrible. We're still dealing with the legacy created by the Old Possum. Andrew Jackson is commonly ranked by scholars in the top ten or just out of it in historical assessments, thus it is unlikely he was universally terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Flashheart Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Incredible.Shhhh. Ignore it. It will self destruct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 If a Republican gets back into the White House, I expect them to chill out a bit. Still be awful to be sure. Just not quite as awful as they've been as the opposition in the Obama era.Are you fucking joking? The last Republican president started two wars, one of which had a campaign of lies and deliberate misinformation to gain public support, used a major act of terrorism to pass a law that at minimum violates the 4th, 6th and 1st amendments, engaged in torture of many people and set up prison camps where people are held for indefinite periods of time and tortured without any sort of due process. That's really better than the GOP as obstructionists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Huh? I'm not advocating for another Republican President. I expect it to be terrible as I said. I'm just saying that they won't be quite so nihilistic on every act of governing. There were no government shutdowns under GWB, but that doesn't mean that it's an endorsement of him. No need to advocate. Obama's doing a pretty good job on his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Obama's executive action on immigration has never occurred before, except for Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Greater, Clinton and Bush the Lesser... http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/executive-action-immigration-has-long-and-lawful-history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Obama's executive action on immigration has never occurred before, except for Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Greater, Clinton and Bush the Lesser... http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/executive-action-immigration-has-long-and-lawful-historyYou know I usually don't bother trading MSNBC links. But I read yours. It's so misleading that now I know I'm justified in my dismissal of their links. Reagan used executive amnesty after the immigration bill. How do you people not comprehend that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Big post here...Obama's response to executive action question at Univision Town Hall: "Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity." "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed -- and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws." "There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.""That does not mean, though, that we can't make decisions, for example, to emphasize enforcement on those who’ve engaged in criminal activity. It also doesn’t mean that we can't strongly advocate and propose legislation that would change the law in order to make it more fair, more just, and ultimately would help young people who are here trying to do the right thing and whose talents we want to embrace in order to succeed as a country." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 OK, anybody read that or are we still denying that it exists? Now let's look at this exclusively: Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.What laws were created between 2011 to 2014 to change this quote? Because at the time Obama does not find it constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 OK, anybody read that or are we still denying that it exists? Now let's look at this exclusively:What laws were created between 2011 to 2014 to change this quote? Because at the time Obama does not find it constitutional.Up until the point Congress actually gives the executive enough funding to do everything it is supposed to do it is the job of the executive to stretch the money they do have. Which often means prioritizing high risk or high yield cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Minsc,Andrew Jackson is commonly ranked by scholars in the top ten or just out of it in historical assessments, thus it is unlikely he was universally terrible.He's one of my top ten worst. In many ways he gave birth to the imperial Presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin of Ice Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Because he is still one of the most influential presidents in American History. Though, if you want you could just take it as a subtle jab at him in connection to his opposition to the National Bank. Back in the 90s and early 2000s when it seemed like the 20 was the only bill being changed and adjusted and those changes were happening all the time, I used to jokingly suggest it was the Fed fucking with Jackson's bill because of his opposition to the creation of a National Bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 The fact that we honor a genocide with a portrait on our currency is just unfathomable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 The fact that we honor a genocide with a portrait on our currency is just unfathomable to me. I agree Scot. But we also honor slaveholders and defenders of the slavery regime. Some of us more than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I agree Scot. But we also honor slaveholders and defenders of the slavery regime. Some of us more than others. Yes. Statuary Hall is fucking wild. Mississippi chose Jefferson Davis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 You know I usually don't bother trading MSNBC links. But I read yours. It's so misleading that now I know I'm justified in my dismissal of their links. Reagan used executive amnesty after the immigration bill. How do you people not comprehend that?Because it is only half true. There was an immigration bill. Both Reagan and Bush then expanded it beyond the scope of the bill. Reagan's was later confirmed but it was not a sure thing when he took action.http://news.yahoo.com/reagan-bush-acted-alone-shield-immigrants-171420251.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 DG, OAR,I do see your point. I guess, for me, I can see why Jackson is considered "important". He dramaticly expanded the powers of the Presidency, started the "spoils system", and sank the Second National Bank. But I don't think any of his actions served the US well in the long term. Plus, he's a genocide. Jackson is so much more than just a slaveowner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I'm with you on Jackson, Scot, he was a terrible President and person on a few levels. On top of his pre-Presidential extralegal militarism, slaveholding, and support for ethnic cleansing, there's also the fact that killing the National Bank was probably the main cause the Panic of 1837. Get him off our money. I only mention the Statuary Hall thing because it blew my mind when I visited there a few years ago and has stuck with me. We really have an insane historical memory in the entire country, but it does seem there's a particularly unsettling reverence for Confederates in the Deep South. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 You know I usually don't bother trading MSNBC links.MSNBC is biased but the above is rich from the guy who thinks op-eds in the NY Post, assorted tinfoil sites and Infowars = FACTS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 OAR,It is true that there is a reverence for the Confederacy and the people who made the incredibly foolish decision to secede. The myth of the "Lost Cause" is still strong down here. My opinions about the legality of secession, notwithstanding, I have no illusions about the "nobility" of the reasons why the South chose to attempt to leave the Union. It was a move by the Planter class to protect their aristocratic cast system built on the backs of Slaves. They were in the wrong even if I believe their actions, in choosing to secede (not in holding people as slaves that is wrong regardless of its "legality"), should have been legal under the existing Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.