OT Survey, Which Party Do You Think Will Be Better For Machine Shops?



I can't watch ANY of these Dem or repubican dog&pony shows. To me, it's the visual/philosophical equivalent to nails on a chalkboard, or to watching New Kids on the Block, or Paris giving her thoughts on life. Sorry, didn't mean to get so obscene....

Winston Churchill observed that the best argument against democracy (and certainly a populist vote) is a 5 min conversation with the average voter.
Go Winston!!
What we really need is an intelligent, humanist/benevolent despot, with a penchant for putting corrupt officials, lawyers, and CEOs to instant death. Mebbe turn it into a spin-the-wheel gameshow or sumpn. Or have the execution-ees play one last game of Jeopardy, for their lives. Oh shit, ahm gettin a chubby..... Alex, I'll take Psychopathic Roman Emperors for $100....

Too much bother--they'll just have the troublemaker killed.
--
PV'd




>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jon Anderson wrote:

Sarah was an excellent pick for the charisma challenged McCain.
I've read that McCain is an admirer of Teddy Roosevelt. If he and Palin shake things up and do half of what TR did I'd be a happy camper.

Obama reminds me a lot of a Black Preacher in his delivery and cadence. Nothing wrong with that, just interesting to note. Have you also noticed him droppin his g?
Camille Paglia has a provocative article:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin /
I like Camille, she is much like Sarah Palin, not afraid to shake things up.

--


Regards,
Steve Saling
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Garlicdude wrote:

Well, one has to play the game to get the job. I'm hoping he and Sarah will live up to their hype about being mavericks. Hell, I'd like to see a sitting president actually use the line item veto. Both have gone against their party at times, and that's something positive. So often, failure to stay to the far fringes is a death sentence....

Hadn't noticed anything like that, but I sure have noticed he stutters and stumbles around a lot lately. Like he has trouble composing in real time, exactly what he wants to say. Not saying that's bad, I'd rather wrestle alligators than speak before an audience. But I remember him being a lot smoother some time back.

That was a good article! I give a lot more credence to people that can take shots at both sides of the aisle.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jon Anderson wrote:

Does the Pres. have the line item veto? I know Reagan wanted that option, but I'm not sure that it was ever implemented, or passed?
Best, Steve
--


Regards,
Steve Saling
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Garlicdude wrote:

No, it isnt constitutional.
--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John R. Carroll wrote:

Ah, I thought it had gone through and stuck. Seemed to me a ways into Bush's first term there was talk that he hadn't used the line item veto like he'd promised.
Well then, am I mistaken again, or didn't McCain talk about using the line item veto recently in a speech?
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jon Anderson wrote:

John:
    Constitutionality seems like such a vague term these days.

Jon:
============================================================================http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996
Line Item Veto Act of 1996
    The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 enacted a line-item veto for the Federal Government of the United States, but its effect was brief due to judicial review. Public Law (P.L.) 104-130 [1] was introduced by Senator Bob Dole on 4 January 1995, cosponsored by Senator John McCain and 28 other senators. Related House Bills included H.R. 147, H.R. 391, H.R. 2,H.R. 27 and H.R. 3136. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on April 9, 1996 and was immediately challenged in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of six senators, first among whom was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), where it was declared unconstitutional by District Judge Harry Jackson, a Reagan appointee, on April 10, 1997. The case was subsequently remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States with instructions to dismiss on the grounds that the senators had not suffered sufficient injury to press charges under Article III of the United States Constitution (i.e., the senators lacked standing). The case, Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), was handed down on June 26, 1997, and did not include a judgement on the constitutional grounds of the law. It was used against one provision of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and two provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 before being challenged again in two separate cases; one by the City of New York, two hospital associations, one hospital, and two health care unions; the other by a farmers' cooperative from Idaho and an individual member of the cooperative. Senators Byrd, Moynihan, Levin, and Hatfield again opposed the law, this time through Amicus curi briefs. Judge Thomas Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia combined the cases and declared the law unconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. Justices Breyer, Scalia, and O'Connor dissented. ============================================================================
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BottleBob wrote:

Thanks for the citation.
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Is anyone surprised it was proposed by republicans, and challenged by tax and spend Demonrats?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jon Anderson wrote:

I think every President wishes for the ability to selectively edit spending legistlation. Some have proposed legistlative action but our constitution is specific on this and vitrually every legal scholar would tell you that until a constitutional ammendment is passed, the President can either veto or sign a bill. He can't tinker with it by taking the stuff he likes and tossing what he doesn't. This makes good sense.

He talks about using his veto in every appearance. What he says is that he'll veto any bill with an earmark. That's good campaign rhetoric but not practical, something he knows. What he ought to just do is be honest. There really are times when an earmark makes sense. Unfortunately, the process is seriously overused and abused so we end up with Congresscritters using the appropriations process to send money home by the boat load to take care of their States if they are Senators or congressional districts if they are in the lower house. The real problem isn't the amounts involved, which in the grand scale of the budget process are trivial. The problem is that, for instance, Sarah Palin and the lobbying firm she hires as Mayor of Wallisa were able to get a ton of Federal money poured on them without having to go through the public process. She engaged in the same practice as Governor. In fact, when she was campaigning for the Governors job she made a big deal of the federal money she'd gotten appropriated as Mayor for Wallisa and offered it as proof of her intentions to do the same as Governor.
This sort of thing ( earmarks ) corrupts the electoral process and that's why it should be either severely curtailed or ended. You have a hard time running against an opponent that promises to put money in the voters pockets directly or by federally funding jobs or something that's desired like a park or waterway. THAT is what McCain has consistently fought against his entire career and you have to wonder how Palin, pork barreler extraordinaire, and McCain ever got together except in the most cynical way. They are polar opposites on the one issue John S. McCain has built his career on.
--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John R. Carroll wrote:

Politics does make for strange bedfellows.... (ooh, there's a cliche that suddenly sounds creepy....)
Jon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:46:49 -0700, "John R. Carroll"

Line item veto would effectively eliminate the two houses of congress and the budget process while putting TOO much power in one man/woman's hands. Would be great if the right person was sitting in the seat.
However, if lies and/or misrepresentations from ALL those seeking elected office were turned into dollars we wouldn't be running a deficit. You could remove the counter http://www.machiningsolution.com/ from your web site.
Tom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I'd be pleased to do so Tom.
--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:34:59 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

How about a line item veto and having it automatically passed back to both houses of Congress for approval/disapproval and then being passed back to the Pres for signing?
Given that it would turn into such a bargining cycle, that it would take years to pass a bill....which is a very good thing

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:46:49 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
<snip>

<snip> ------------- It might make perfect sense, but google on "signing statements" for >200k hits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_ (United_States)
for a list of the 2001-2008 "signing statements" click on http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm
In many cases these "signing statements" not only rescinded direct/specific Congressional appropriations and/or reallocated funds, but also changed the intent/content of legislation, in affect saying I like this section and will enforce it, but I don't like that provision and won't enforce it. This even extends to the declaration of war.
Nice to see the 'ule of law" in action....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
F. George McDuffee wrote:

I think Bob made an oblique reference to just this earlier.
--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, a veto can be overriden. It would require those that support that particular item being lined out to stand up to to be counted. Congress would still have ultimate authority on spending legislation.
The Supremes ruled 6-3 against, Justices Breyer, Scalia, and O'Connor dissented. Note, left, center right, and right.
Wes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BottleBob wrote:

Ain't that the truth. I think it depends on who you are. LOL
--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John R. Carroll wrote:

That's what I thought also John.
--


Regards,
Steve Saling
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, President Clinton never got to use it as far as I can remember. The supreme court ruled that the power of the purse belongs to Congress, likely the House. I'd have been fine letting WJC having it if his successors has it also.
The supreme's were likely correct in their ruling. Now if they would only rule a military action was not legal if Congress didn't declare war. The last time we did this right was WWII. I believe we won that one. Results in subsequent conflicts has been a bit spotty.
Wes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.