29 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote
Why are you sorry. I may not have been clear enough, but that's no reason to get emotional about it. I'm a big boy, I'm wearing my big-boy britches.
And yet resorting to childish insults to try to make your point. Bravo!
Did you fail to notice that I also included clinton in the list of folks who did this? Why yes, yes you did.
Did you fail to notice my use of the phrase "Bush didn't start it but he made it worse"? Why yes, yes you did.
Is it legal? You do understand how the legal system works, right?
As I demonstrate time and time again in a rational and level headed way... yes, I do.
"We aren't going to enforce this law" effects the same result as not passing the law.
Only for the time of that a given administration decides to not enforce the law as written... as seen in this case... they changed their mind.
I think I was pretty clear about why I think it was smart. He said as much when dealing with DADT. The goal isn't to kick the can down the road, the goal is to get it into law, then the courts so it can be challenged and fixed if neccessary.
Talk about some doublespeak!
No, if he was smart he would have challenged the law immediately, not allow the creation of a dependency (the users) and aboveground economy (the jobs) through the explicit and intentional enforcement of the law... only to risk all of it after the fact.
He himself has now caused what you are/were afraid a Republican would do. Why not just cut out the middle stuff?
Hell... an even smarter (and more politically savvy) would have been to allow the grey market to grow flourish (and likely become more politically powerful) so that when a future administration tried to re-enforce the laws, there would be an even larger push back against such a move.
You know... what successive administrations have done with regards to illegal immigration?
Perhaps if you'd quit smacking yourself in the face with your palm, you'd give yourself a chance to comprehend stuff.
You'll note my tag line off to the side there... "inanity makes my head hurt". It has nothing to do with *face palms*.
I'm sorry, are you giving me a civics lesson or discussing finance and prioritization. Either way, thanks, but I've got a pretty decent grasp of both.
Again, your words say otherwise.
Establishing precident in the courts would make for a much clearer answer to the question "can I sell weed in california". So Obama directs the DOJ to go back to enforcing it
Again... the precident was already there... then he changed it... then he changed it again.
Maybe some campaign bundling could make them safer... or even get them a nice DoE loan. I mean, they are green jobs, aren't they?
(Like he directed them to challenge DADT)
Wait! When exactly did Obama direct the DOJ to challenge DADT (ie in court)? He's ordered them not to defend DOMA... but I can find no information as to the DOJ challenging DADT... hell, I can actually find the opposite.
I would suggest supporting your claim before you dig yourself into any other factual holes.
and lets the courts determine the correct answer. That way, the next time a dem isn't running the show, the change in how the executive enforces the rules won't cause a shakeup in the industry.
You mean like the President just did!??!?!
I know you and I don't agree, often, if ever, but try and remember that I"m not a complete f*cking idiot.
Your words sure seem to say otherwise.
I know you want the President to do well. I know you believe in him and want him to succeed in everything he does... and when he doesn't, defend it to your last breath.
The sooner you recognize that he is a horrible project/program manager, the better off you and the rest of us will be.
Like many PMs, he paints a grand and rosy vision of the future... only when defining the intermediate steps to getting there he just can't adequately understand the external dependencies which usually leads to poorly managed expectations along the way as the schedule slips. When things go wrong, he's unable to accept responsibility nor alter his spec when a feature needs to be cut to help get the product out the door. Because of this rigidness he ends up with a poor ability to build a non-obvious network of support or alignment with sympathetic stakeholders.
It is unfortunate that he got promoted too fast from his last job (evangelist). Sure, he might not have grown much more in that old role, but it was a far better fit for his skills than where he is today.