The executive prerogative to not enforce laws

[chipbennett]

He's not encouraging people to vote, he's encouraging them to shut up.

I disagree. Choosing not to vote makes a statement as well and your opinion can still be valid.

No, I'm stating that our government is designed such that the voice of the individual regarding governance is expressed through the ballot box. If you choose not to participate, you don't then get to claim disenfranchisement, or dissatisfaction with the perceived action or inaction of those who are elected. Nor do you get to claim that the president is justified in performing a legislative end-around, because the "do-nothing" Congress isn't legislating according to the will of the people.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm not so sure we're not better off if fewer people vote. If your circle of friends and family are like mine, probably the percentage I would judge having an educated opinion (misguided or not) on significant issues of the day, roughly reflects the turn out in midterm elections such as these. I've got pockets of friends and family that are very knowledgable but I'd bet the majority of the others couldn't pass Beck's Moron Trivia or Leno's Jay Walking quizzes.

I know it's popular to urge people to get out and vote, let their voices be heard, and all those other platitudes but maybe we ought to asterisk that with "* if you know what the heck you're doing".

I guess it depends who gets out to vote...it could be good...it could be bad. Some dingbats choose to stay home and I am sure there are intelligent people who stayed home (it was a midterm I guess). Neither party is doing a great job of rallying the base, the Republicans did just a little bit better than the Dems this time around.

He's not encouraging people to vote, he's encouraging them to shut up.

I disagree. Choosing not to vote makes a statement as well and your opinion can still be valid.

The problem with that strategy is it's indiscernible from the ignorant and lazy.

Although I'm pretty sure you're not thinking of it this way GFTF, "if they're stooopid they shouldn't be voting" is very similar to the apparent Progressives' "Americans are too stupid to know what's good for them, so we'll lie to them for their own good."

And steve_h, refusing to vote may be a way to protest the choices available (and thus a "valid" opinion), it's not "opinions" which elect our Representatives, it's votes.

Every citizen has a duty to be aware of the issues which concern the nation and the way his Representatives are performing their jobs. Probably the largest failure of the American citizenry in the past century has been that they felt they could leave their federal government safely in the hands of their Elected Representatives and just attend to their own affairs. While that would be the ideal, we've learned that we can't do that if we want to keep our liberties. Apparently George Washington wasn't only talking about foreign enemies when he told us we needed to be eternally vigilant.

 

[steveh_131]

The problem with that strategy is it's indiscernible from the ignorant and lazy.

I don't disagree, but I won't tell someone to 'shut up' because of it.

No, I'm stating that our government is designed such that the voice of the individual regarding governance is expressed through the ballot box. If you choose not to participate, you don't then get to claim disenfranchisement, or dissatisfaction with the perceived action or inaction of those who are elected. Nor do you get to claim that the president is justified in performing a legislative end-around, because the "do-nothing" Congress isn't legislating according to the will of the people.

I voted, so I'm not in this group. But someone certainly could still claim disenfranchisement. Unless you plan on voting for one of the two main parties, your vote will have no bearing on the actual results of the election. This is a valid complaint, whether someone votes or not.

And steve_h, refusing to vote may be a way to protest the choices available (and thus a "valid" opinion), it's not "opinions" which elect our Representatives, it's votes.

I don't disagree with you here, but I cast many of my votes knowing full well that my choice will not be elected. I don't do it to win an election, I do it to make a statement with my vote. I support liberty, and if there comes a day where either party needs my vote, they'll have to start supporting it too.

Some people choose to make that statement by not voting. I don't believe it to be as effective because, like GodFearinGunTotin said, it is somewhat indiscernible from apathy or laziness. But I also won't be up on my high-horse telling anyone to 'shut up' because they choose that route.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This makes absolutely no sense. Do you seriously succeed as a lawyer with these disconnects in logic? Or do you just use words that you don't understand?

Sputter, sputter, sputter. Such lashing out, looks like I am right on target yet again.

Anyone recognize that the INGOtarians have no argument, only insults? Well, they have violence and fits of impotent rage too, but mostly insults.

Maybe if INGOtarians would stop to educated themselves, instead of imposing tyranny on the rest of us, they would realize that despotism in the rule of the whim of the individual. This definition is even engraved on moments in courthouses in this state.

Barack Obama's new decree can only be described as despotism. On his whim and his whim alone a new law was decreed. Obama is making it up out of whole cloth and imposing his will on us. This is the essense of despotism and INGOtarians have dropped the mask are dancing for joy at its implementation..

You are either a lackey of tyranny or intellectually dishonest. There are only two options.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Definition of despotism: "the exercise of absolute power, especially in a cruel and oppressive way."

That is not the only definition of despotism.

Despotism is defined as rule of the whim of the individual. It is engraved in courthouses in this state, e.g. Allen County's third floor mural.

 

[steveh_131]

Sputter, sputter, sputter. Such lashing out, looks like I am right on target yet again.

Anyone recognize that the INGOtarians have no argument, only insults? Well, they have violence and fits of impotent rage too, but mostly insults.

Maybe if INGOtarians would stop to educated themselves, instead of imposing tyranny on the rest of us, they would realize that despotism in the rule of the whim of the individual. This definition is even engraved on moments in courthouses in this state.

Barack Obama's new decree can only be described as despotism. On his whim and his whim alone a new law was decreed. Obama is making it up out of whole cloth and imposing his will on us. This is the essense of despotism and INGOtarians have dropped the mask are dancing for joy at its implementation..

You are either a lackey of tyranny or intellectually dishonest. There are only two options. You are contemptible either way.

You seem to be missing the point.

I provided an example of his orders where this definition sort of fits. Exercising power over others.

Preventing another party from exercising power over others does NOT meet this definition or any other definition that you've brought up so far.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Please point out a single post in this thread that advocates absolute power for the executive branch.

The arguments that I have made and have seen can only result in less power for the government. One branch wants the government to act and another can prevent it, resulting in no action.

There are only two options. Either you are exercising complete intellectual dishonesty or you have no idea what the word 'despotism' means.

How about the OP.

You really don't understand what Obama did, do you? Just admit you have opinion from Reason or L. Neil Smith or some other comic book and I'll understand that you are not really this stupid, just misinformed.

Obama did not just order people not to be deported but took steps to give people status and put them on the path to citizenship.

He acted upon his whim and ignored the separation of powers and the role of Congress. This is despotism.

 

[steveh_131]

I know I'm right on target when Kirk starts calling me a tyrant

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Preventing another party from exercising power over others does NOT meet this definition or any other definition that you've brought up so far.

Yes it does.

On Nero's whim he overturned the ruling of courts, preventing them from taking actions. On Nero's whim he interfered with the Senate, preventing them from taking actions.

 

[steveh_131]

He gave people "status"? My goodness, what a despot amirite?

Webster should add that to the definition.

 

[steveh_131]

Talking about Nero? I must be right on target.

(am I doing this right?)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He gave people "status"? My goodness, what a despot amirite?

Obama did not just act in the negative, he took positive steps without the authority to do so, other than the authority of his whim.

I, unlike the INGOtarians, do not celebrate this exercise of personal whim. I am terrified by it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Talking about Nero? I must be right on target.

(am I doing this right?)

No, because it is self-evident that you do not understand what you are talking about.

 

[steveh_131]

Kirk, did you read the OP? This thread isn't about positive actions by the government toward individuals. It is about the prevention of them.

Has Obama acted like a dictator in some instances? Yes. I said that earlier.

But, as the op argued, is preventing positive actions by another government branch a reason to call someone a dictator? Or a despot? No.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But, as the op argued, is preventing positive actions by another government branch a reason to call someone a dictator? Or a despot? No.

If we are talking about the forest, then yes, you are correct.

THIS particular tree is an outrage and must be rooted out.

 

[poptab]

I get such a warm feeling knowing that INGOtarians support the rule of the individual's whim--despotism.

I knew all that juvenile rhetoric about Liberty was just a stalking horse for a fascist agenda, and now we have proof beyond any doubt.

you are the expert in juvenile rhetoric so I will defer to you.

 

[steveh_131]

If we are talking about the forest, then yes, you are correct.

THIS particular tree is an outrage and must be rooted out.

Then we mostly agree. The only disagreement you might find is what constitutes a "positive action", which is an interesting debate. But that particular disagreement hardly justifies calling people here tyrants.

 

[bingley]

This is what Sarah Palin says

“If I were Obama I’d put all 11 million of these folks on boats and send them back to Mexico,” she opined. “The liberal media says it’s impossible to deport that many people. But I say we can do it if we have enough ships.“Let’s commandeer all the cruise ships, all the fishing vessels and all the yachts those fat cat Obama donors own. And then let’s pack ‘em full of illegals and send these people on a one-way cruise to Mexico City.
“The long voyage back across the Mexican Ocean should give them plenty of time to think about how they shouldn’t be coming here to America and jeopardizing our freedom and prosperity by breaking our laws.”

I want to see this Mexican Ocean. Maybe you can see Russia from there!

Sarah Palin: Send Immigrants ?Back Across Ocean? to Mexico - The Daily Currant

 

[Expat]

Wow, the cabal was out last night. I always found it strange when the Democrat Underground puts out the call to support their man, the libertarians of INGO respond.

 

[cobber]

Obama did not just act in the negative, he took positive steps without the authority to do so, other than the authority of his whim.

I, unlike the INGOtarians, do not celebrate this exercise of personal whim. I am terrified by it.

INGO libertarianism being strongly rooted in casuistry, they will rise to howl at the abuse of process when one of their sacred cows is violated. Until then, it's all good. Federal courts, POTUS, other petty tyrants, chip away at the Constitution and separation of powers to your hearts' content.

At least with Maddow and her ilk you get consistent adherence to principles.

Wow, the cabal was out last night. I always found it strange when the Democrat Underground puts out the call to support their man, the libertarians of INGO respond.

Would we have it any other way?