GORDON wrote:What would happen if Obama started shooting peeps on Pennsylvania Ave. out the Oval Office window one day, on camera? Could he be forcibly, immediately removed from office?
I recall something about there being an "unfit for office" clause somewhere, but I don't know who would enforce it.
It would result in President Biden. I'm not sure what to think of that.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TheCatt wrote:If I were to go for a 3rd way it would be: Obama is reacting to the fact that a constitutionally, democratically-elected president is being forced from office by might rather than by vote, even though elections are coming up in November, and believes that the principles of democracy should be followed, and that they outweigh whatever actions the president may have taken.
Well, unless Honduras' Supreme Court is vastly different in function from ours, they have pretty much ruled his actions in office as unconstitutional. From what I can tell, he was attempting to break the law and acting in direct violation of his country's supreme court.
That would kind of negate the whole "constitutionally democratically elected" thing, or at least circumvent it. He was trying to make himself king for life.
I'm starting to think Obama's evil. He's starting to make Carter look competent. Even an idiot should get some of these right by accident at a better rate than Obama has been.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
TheCatt wrote:If I were to go for a 3rd way it would be: Obama is reacting to the fact that a constitutionally, democratically-elected president is being forced from office by might rather than by vote, even though elections are coming up in November, and believes that the principles of democracy should be followed, and that they outweigh whatever actions the president may have taken.
Well, unless Honduras' Supreme Court is vastly different in function from ours, they have pretty much ruled his actions in office as unconstitutional. From what I can tell, he was attempting to break the law and acting in direct violation of his country's supreme court.
Sort of. It sounds like he was just getting things ready to do something wrong but hadn't done it yet. Probably a more technically correct way to handle it would have been to let him call the referendum, then declare that act unconstitutional and disallow Congress to act on it because they would have been called improperly.
I can't blame them for jumping the gun, though, if he's dumping generals until he finds some that will do whatever he wants. If he does enough of that then there's no one left who will stop him when the time comes to do so properly.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
OK, so I read more on Honduras. WSJ has some great coverage if you read about 5-6 pages in.
Basically, he broke the law. But, he could have been tried in the courts, or gone through the Honduran legal process instead of being forcibly removed. He has stated now that he will no longer seek to amend the constitution, nor try to run for office again. SoS Clinton has stated that the former president's return to power is not a necessary state for resolution of the issue (though I cannot find that online right now).
Protesters today demanding that he not be back in power far out-numbered protesters the other day demanding his return.
I'm guessing he ends up back, probably in power, and serves out his term.
made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the Fifth of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as “proof” of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 weeks -- so you'll have three years and nine-and-a-half months to come up with an answer.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
All I see is Eric Cartman droning, "I misinterpreted the rules. Just repeat after me, I misinterpreted..."
Or even more frightening -- a buddy of mine caught the episode of "Cheers" where Fraiser convinced Woody to run for city council. The advice he gives appears to've gotten Comrade Obama elected. Comrade or Czar?
Edited By Malcolm on 1246909020
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
The Wall Street Journal reports Biden's comments were "likely to intensify calls for the administration to do more to counter job losses." White House economists "are discussing whether a second round of stimulus is needed, but a decision isn't expected until at least the fall."
I think they mistake the word "stimulus" for "enema." Or maybe "assfucking."
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
The new rules will go into effect in 2012, and will save up to 594 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and save consumers up to 4 billion annually through 2042.
Standards will include decreasing electricity use by general service fluorescent lamps by 15% and incandescent reflector lamps by 25%. These lamps represent 37% and 7% of lighting energy use respectively.
So that means that I can still get normal lightbulbs, but they'll use less energy? I'm ok with that, assuming a cost increase that's not disproportionate to the reduced energy cost.
But I couldn't find anything that gave more details than the above.
Today you're getting the most efficient balance between the actual product quality, and the cost. The government will be putting an end to that.
When Congress passed a new energy law two years ago, obituaries were written for the incandescent lightbulb. The law set tough efficiency standards, due to take effect in 2012, that no traditional incandescent bulb on the market could meet, and a century-old technology that helped create the modern world seemed to be doomed.
But as it turns out, the obituaries were premature.
Researchers across the country have been racing to breathe new life into Thomas Edison's lightbulb, a pursuit that accelerated with the new legislation. Amid that footrace, one company is already marketing limited quantities of incandescent bulbs that meet the 2012 standard, and researchers are promising a wave of innovative products in the next few years.
Indeed, the incandescent bulb is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation.
"There's a massive misperception that incandescents are going away quickly," said Chris Calwell, a researcher with Ecos Consulting who studies the bulb market. "There have been more incandescent innovations in the last three years than in the last two decades."
The first bulbs to emerge from this push, Philips Lighting's Halogena Energy Savers, are expensive compared with older incandescents. They sell for $5 apiece and more, compared with as little as 25 cents for standard bulbs.
But they are also 30 percent more efficient than older bulbs. Philips says that a 70-watt Halogena Energy Saver gives off the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt bulb and lasts about three times as long, eventually paying for itself.
Indeed, the incandescent bulb is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation.
What stupid fucking logic. I bet people run faster when they're being chased by grizzlies, too. Why not have wild animals "spur" every marathon?
Edited By Malcolm on 1246935651
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
The first bulbs to emerge from this push, Philips Lighting's Halogena Energy Savers, are expensive compared with older incandescents. They sell for $5 apiece and more, compared with as little as 25 cents for standard bulbs.
But they are also 30 percent more efficient than older bulbs. Philips says that a 70-watt Halogena Energy Saver gives off the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt bulb and lasts about three times as long, eventually paying for itself.
Someone do the math on this. I somehow suspect that at 200x the cost of an old bulb that the lifespan of most of the new bulbs wouldn't allow for it to ever pay for itself.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Obama’s health care proposal is, in effect, the repeal of the Medicare program as we know it. The elderly will go from being the group with the most access to free medical care to the one with the least access. Indeed, the principal impact of the Obama health care program will be to reduce sharply the medical services the elderly can use. No longer will their every medical need be met, their every medication prescribed, their every need to improve their quality of life answered.
It is so ironic that the elderly - who were so vigilant when Bush proposed to change Social Security - are so relaxed about the Obama health care proposals. Bush’s Social Security plan, which did not cut their benefits at all, aroused the strongest opposition among the elderly. But Obama’s plan, which will totally gut Medicare and replace it with government-managed care and rationing, has elicited little more than a yawn from most senior citizens.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
His numbers with the seniors, as pointed out in another column, are now under 50%. I believe his overall job rating is the same.
The next election is going to be interesting. I think Obama's novelty has worn off with everyone except the MSM who still can't get enough of him.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell