[ExI] Tap tap..Hello? Is this thing on? (Or Zombie Apocalypse!)
rahmans at me.com
Fri Oct 11 08:33:35 UTC 2013
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:45:17 -0400
> From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Tap tap..Hello? Is this thing on? (Or Zombie
> <CAAc1gFgQ76Jtk4dQ3EWfk=8S3ayYzukDxNkxvJZYdspubqUcAA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> (I wrote)
> Congress gave the president
>> about 99% of the money he needs to run the government. The president
>> refused to run the government, and shut it down. He could have taken
>> the money and done his job but refused to.
>> Do you agree that the president shut down the government?
> Omar wrote:
>> In a word; no.
You said, "Congress gave the president about 99% of the money he needs to run the government." This is just plain wrong.
Congress is a bicameral legislature and it failed to pass an appropriations bill. The president had nothing to sign or veto, hence the president didn't shut down the government.
Are these two sentences clear enough for you?
If some sort of mangled appropriations bill had landed on the president's desk defunding some important program,(You pick whatever you like/dislike.....it doesn't matter for this example.), the president has the option to veto it. In the case of a stalemate, Congress has some sort of mechanisms for forcing a bill to become law but I believe it involves 2/3 majorities in both the House and the Senate.
What is far more likely to happen, as pointed to by the repeated use of the phrase "full faith and confidence of the government of the United States" by the president, is that this will reach a crisis level equal to that of a "national emergency" and the president will then be able to use "emergency powers" to resolve the standoff.
I'm guessing that even the most fanatical, racist, and fascist elements of the Tea Party will cave in before then. They should be called the Koolaid Party because they really seem to have 'drunk the koolaid'.
> ### If not Mr Obama, then who shut down parts of the executive branch
> of government, and precisely how did he do it? Name specific names and
> describe the flow of legal authority and commands that achieved the
> As you may remember from civics, members of the legislative branch do
> not have the legal authority to issue commands to institutions of the
> executive branch, except in some limited and relatively well-defined
> So, who did it and how?
I'm sure that I don't want to delve into the specifics of how and why each element and/or employee of the government that is 'shutdown' is 'shutdown' as this would devolve into an argument about bureaucratic trivialities. But more than that I certainly wouldn't want to try to give specifics about unspecified specifics. Moreover, I don't feel that I could do this precisely.
In general; "He of the Orange glow and Weepy eyes" afraid of the "Brethren of Koolaid" who made loud 'ugg ugg' for many time in the place of 50 clan chiefs. Great sky spirt X, Y, and Z has revealed to the Brethren of Koolaid that most harmful thing for people is 'healthcare' and best thing for people is big more guns. Now the Brethren of Koolaid make loud 'ugg ugg' in all place and no give gold rocks to nobody never nohow nowhen nowhy. NO NO NO! UGG UGG!
Until Main Street, Wall Street, and K Street finally have had enough and kick them right where they will say 'UGG uggg uggggg....'
Are we clear?
As Yoda I could talk, if help it would? ( Remember that? =D)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat