I see Der Fuhrer threatened to veto anything Congress passes that will affect they Syrians he wants in. Love those Gestapo tactics he uses. Government is by and for the people...and over 50% dont want them. The US is his personal kingdom.
Just sayin, wonder if he would be held responsible if he lets them in and a bunch are militants and attack something on US soil like in Paris ?
I see Der Fuhrer threatened to veto anything Congress passes that will affect they Syrians he wants in. Love those Gestapo tactics he uses. Government is by and for the people...and over 50% dont want them. The US is his personal kingdom.
Just sayin, wonder if he would be held responsible if he lets them in and a bunch are militants and attack something on US soil like in Paris ?
You do know that one power the US President has is VETO, right? This power is granted in the US CONSTITUTION. If Congress is REALLY concerned, they have the ability to override his veto.
(not defending Obama... just pointing out that what you said is incorrect)
You do know that one power the US President has is VETO, right? This power is granted in the US CONSTITUTION. If Congress is REALLY concerned, they have the ability to override his veto.
(not defending Obama... just pointing out that what you said is incorrect)
know and understand, we the people have the biggest veto power,, and that is why they want the guns..
As long as The biggest army in the world ,the American people . are armed, the brew haha about the C.I.C. sendng national guard or troops in, to force states to take the Syrians, will never happen.. and if it did, they would never fire or enforce the order.. as they'd get run over by that biggest army in the world.. as it's not going to take much for we the pissed off people to say, fluck it..
connect the dots, the want to ban guns has zero to do with anyone's safety... it's about being able to control we the people fully and completely..
The sad part is Obama might use this Syrian refugee issue to bring marshal law. and become king dictator. again follow the dots... or like in the cartoons, follow the bouncing ball..
So... back on topic...know and understand... we have a constitution, and that clearly defines the powers of each branch of our government. Congress passes legislation, if vetoed, it goes back to Congress and they can override the veto. Pretty clear, and very simple to understand.
If you want to talk about gun control... you may want to try a different topic.
quote
Originally posted by E.Furgal:
know and understand, we the people have the biggest veto power,, and that is why they want the guns..
As long as The biggest army in the world ,the American people . are armed, the brew haha about the C.I.C. sendng national guard or troops in, to force states to take the Syrians, will never happen.. and if it did, they would never fire or enforce the order.. as they'd get run over by that biggest army in the world.. as it's not going to take much for we the pissed off people to say, fluck it..
connect the dots, the want to ban guns has zero to do with anyone's safety... it's about being able to control we the people fully and completely..
The sad part is Obama might use this Syrian refugee issue to bring marshal law. and become king dictator. again follow the dots... or like in the cartoons, follow the bouncing ball..
So... back on topic...know and understand... we have a constitution, and that clearly defines the powers of each branch of our government. Congress passes legislation, if vetoed, it goes back to Congress and they can override the veto. Pretty clear, and very simple to understand.
If you want to talk about gun control... you may want to try a different topic.
wow you are clueless, on how issues connect.. narrow minded comes to mind,, lack of deep thinking..
You do know that one power the US President has is VETO, right? This power is granted in the US CONSTITUTION. If Congress is REALLY concerned, they have the ability to override his veto.
(not defending Obama... just pointing out that what you said is incorrect)
I ABSOLUTELY know Congress can override a veto, but it takes more than just a majority. While a majority dont want them here, I dont know if they can muster up 67%. Just the fact he would veto Congressional will is enough to pizz me off. Like I said dirty tactics. So what part is incorrect ?
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 11-19-2015).]
Rep. Gerald Connolly (D., Va.), an influential foreign policy voice, said more Democrats had warmed to the legislation because the administration hadn’t given them “a compelling reason to vote no,” as he left a closed-door meeting with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 11-19-2015).]
"The US House of Representatives has voted on a bill that sharply increases the security screening ..
The bill requires top US security officials (FBI, Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence) to certify that every refugee admitted to the US “does not represent a security threat,” according to McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
"Protecting the American homeland is not a partisan issue""
Sounds pretty non-controvercial to me. But Obama had quite an issue with it.
Ha, tell that to the eminent one. So far what he wants he gets one way or another. So me saying his way of doing business is incorrect? What hole is your head stuck in.
Moving on, Congress passed the bill putting his admission of Syrian and Iraqui 'refugees' on hold. He says he will veto it. Good thing is apparently Congress is sure they have enough votes to OVERIDE it, as long as no one changes their vote then. We may finally get to see Der Fuhrer put in his place. Have to see how the war plays out.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 11-19-2015).]
On the face of it, a ridiculous post. You are looking for a fight but you won't find one here.
No, not at all as ridiculous as letting in 10,000 Syrian refugees when we have proof muslum jehadists are hiding within them. But no, Ray I have no argument with you.
quote
Now go away, please.
Ray, I went back to your first post and I have been off topic, sorry. But I won't go away
the MILITARY they served in, has moved to the history books, the Military of today isn't the same animal as what they lived..
Most of us have moved on to beyond history, and into the grave, but those of us that remain don't believe the animal has changed much if at all. UMCJ has changed very little--if anything, it has gotten tougher. It has also become much harder on those who would take 'military law' into their own hands. I keep up with the Marine Corps on several websites. Leatherneck.com and Popasmoke.com Popasmoke used to be named USMC/Vietnam Helicopter Pilot & Aircrew Association, is now known as the USMC/Combat Helicopter & Tiltrotor Association. All the original Vietnam Marine sites I joined years ago, have now allowed in 'the New Breed' the guys and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't see a nickel's worth of difference in those fine younger Marines and the ones I served with 40+ years ago. Same hard nosed, professional, take no prisoner, 'bring it on' types the Corps has always had, and hopefully always will. Generals Boomer and Mattis replaced my generation's General Walt and partially replaced Chesty Puller, but those 2 generals are as no-nonsense as any the Corps ever had and their pragmatism filtered right down to the lance corporals and privates. There isn't a Marine alive that doesn't know who General mattis is and would follow him into hell and he is not the type to kowtow to Washington--and Washington DC knew it.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-20-2015).]
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is doggedly determined to import 25,000 by year's end!!!
Well, he DID win the election on that promise, pulling Canada's jets out of Syria and to allow Muslim women to wear the Niqab/Burka (face hidden) during the Canadian Citizen Swearing-in Ceremony. Muslims had 80% voter turnout http://www.cbc.ca/news/poli...a-election-1.3327060
Statistics Canada shows that after 4 years, 30-40% of refugees are still on welfare. So all the talk that having lots of refugees 'benefits' the country don't ring quite true. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pu...626-x2015051-eng.htm
[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 11-22-2015).]
Back in the day, ... circa 1775, a bunch of rag tags were trying to form a nation. So, they all gathered and said let's form a union. In exchange, the union will tell you who you must allow in your States. NOT !
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder: ... back on topic...know and understand... we have a constitution, and that clearly defines the powers of each branch of our government.
True, and powers not granted to the Feds were retained by the States. Odd that the Constitution does not grant the Feds the power of immigration enforcement.
