[ExI] blue screen = hard disk crash?
painlord2k at libero.it
Tue Jul 1 12:34:54 UTC 2014
Il 01/07/2014 00:13, William Flynn Wallace ha scritto:
> they hate the Tea Party, regardless of which side of the political
> spectrum that party inhabits. So the IRS took action to destroy the Tea
> Where are you getting this information? I have seen nothing to
> indicate that they selectively audited tea party groups. It would not
> surprise me, though. Nobody is not playing dirty politics.
Apparently they didn't selectively audited them, they selectively slowed
down the process to grant them exemptions.
Given the Tea Party is against taxes and the IRS is the organism deputed
to raise them, the hostilities are not surprising.
> You gotta admit that Obama must be really frustrated. The number of
> appointments that the Repubs have not acted on is unprecedentedly large,
> and some have sat for over two years. No good reason for that - just
> spite and smallness, meanness, not worthy of elected officials at any
> level. The Supreme Court gave him his comeuppance on recess
> Who can give the Repubs their comeuppance on blocking government
> It is a very old tradition that the president gets to select his
> cabinet, judges, and more, and only if there is very serious reasons to
> stop them should they be stopped.
Tradition or not tradition, Republicans and Democrats have no duty to
approve or reject the names any POTUS choose.
My understanding of the checks and balances put in the US Constitutions
is they were designed to stop the government from acting out of control.
If two branches do not agree, there is a stall. And the stall will last
until they agree. If this need years, let it be so. If it need some
representatives to lose their seat and new representatives to be
elected, let it be.
If the reasons to approve someone are serious or not let it be decided
by the people doing the approval.
If the voters are unsatisfied by the people they elected, the voters
will change them. It is not the business of the POTUS to bypass the
legislative because it is expedient.
Maybe "the people" will decide to change the POTUS instead to change
Senators and Representatives. Or maybe "the people" want to keep the
legislative branch as is, the executive as is and is happy they are
unable to agree about some nominations.
The Federal Government is not there by, for and to "The People"?
If two branches do not agree is the task of "The People" to solve the
More information about the extropy-chat