RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:1) Economic cycles are not extremely rigid... many factors play into the economy.

....yet liberals want to credit one pervert. :rolleyes:

No, rational people will credit two people... Bill Gates and Bill Clinton.

nate jonesacc Wrote:WTF are you talking about?"

The Constitution....which apparently you haven't studied in your 16 years.

nate jonesacc Wrote:No, rational people will credit two people... Bill Gates and Bill Clinton.

Bill Gates, yes. Bill Clinton? Hell no.

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:WTF are you talking about?"

The Constitution....which apparently you haven't studied in your 16 years.

You and I both know that everything in the Constitution isn't upheld. I'm sure GWB NEVER talked to MCs in hopes of persuading them for the Iraq war. I'm sure Clinton NEVER talked to MCs about government spending.

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:No, rational people will credit two people... Bill Gates and Bill Clinton.

Bill Gates, yes. Bill Clinton? Hell no.

Bill Gates? Rich, white guy (probably a Republican)... that = YES from RebelKev

Bill Clinton? Democrat... that = NO from RebelKev

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:WTF are you talking about?"

The Constitution....which apparently you haven't studied in your 16 years.

You and I both know that everything in the Constitution isn't upheld. I'm sure GWB NEVER talked to MCs in hopes of persuading them for the Iraq war. I'm sure Clinton NEVER talked to MCs about government spending.

1 can happen, the other can't. Neither Clinton nor any other President allocates capital or spends. That's Congress. The President CAN, however, send troops to battle for 90 days without congressional approval. Bush received congressional approval.

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:No, rational people will credit two people... Bill Gates and Bill Clinton.

Bill Gates, yes. Bill Clinton? Hell no.

Bill Gates? Rich, white guy (probably a Republican)... that = YES from RebelKev

Bill Clinton? Democrat... that = NO from RebelKev

Bill Gates---Rich white guy that started Microsoft employing thousands directly and millions indirectly in I.T., in turn employing 10's of millions in other service/manufacturing/product-supplying industries.

Bill Clinton---lobbied for the highest tax increases in history slowing the stimulation received from Bill Gates ingenuity, then tried to destroy Bill's company spending more investigating him than he lobbied for Bin Laden.


No what's missing? Political labels.

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:WTF are you talking about?"

The Constitution....which apparently you haven't studied in your 16 years.

You and I both know that everything in the Constitution isn't upheld. I'm sure GWB NEVER talked to MCs in hopes of persuading them for the Iraq war. I'm sure Clinton NEVER talked to MCs about government spending.

1 can happen, the other can't. Neither Clinton nor any other President allocates capital or spends. That's Congress. The President CAN, however, send troops to battle for 90 days without congressional approval. Bush received congressional approval.

Basically, you didn't even address what I said. DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE INFLUENCE OVER CONGRESS AND VICE VERSA? Answer that.

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:No, rational people will credit two people... Bill Gates and Bill Clinton.

Bill Gates, yes. Bill Clinton? Hell no.

Bill Gates? Rich, white guy (probably a Republican)... that = YES from RebelKev

Bill Clinton? Democrat... that = NO from RebelKev

Bill Gates---Rich white guy that started Microsoft employing thousands directly and millions indirectly in I.T., in turn employing 10's of millions in other service/manufacturing/product-supplying industries.

Bill Clinton---lobbied for the highest tax increases in history slowing the stimulation received from Bill Gates ingenuity, then tried to destroy Bill's company spending more investigating him than he lobbied for Bin Laden.


No what's missing? Political labels.

Employing thousands... wasn't that happening to a certain Red Hat in about 1999-2000, roughly when GWB took office? Well damn, what ever happened to that spurring company?

And yes, Bill Gates was a great factor contributing to the economy of the 90s. No one can or will deny that. However, to even think that Bill Clinton sat on his ****** during this time is ludicrous. He thrived on what Bill Gates could give the economy, rather than what a certain other president might do, if Bill Gates was starting Microsoft today.

nate jonesacc Wrote:Basically, you didn't even address what I said. DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE INFLUENCE OVER CONGRESS AND VICE VERSA? Answer that.

No, that WASN'T your question. You implied that they weren't two separate entities. My girlfriend has influence over me and vice-versa, yet we are STILL two separate entities with two separate personalities and priorities. If our priorities coincide, we come to an agreement for a resolution, but we are STILL two, that is 2, separate entities.

nate jonesacc Wrote:<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>WTF... since when are the presidential administration and Congress two completely separate entities? </span>

:stupid:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Basically, you didn't even address what I said. DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE INFLUENCE OVER CONGRESS AND VICE VERSA? Answer that.

No, that WASN'T your question. You implied that they weren't two separate entities. My girlfriend has influence over me and vice-versa, yet we are STILL two separate entities with two separate personalities and priorities. If our priorities coincide, we come to an agreement for a resolution, but we are STILL two, that is 2, separate entities.

Why did I put the word "completely" in there? Because while technically congress and President are two separate roles, they are both part of the same governmental branch, perform many of the same functions, and very often influence each other. They are not COMPLETELY separate entities.

nate jonesacc Wrote:Why did I put the word "completely" in there? Because while technically congress and President are two separate roles, they are <span style='color:red'>both part of the same governmental branch</span>, perform many of the same functions, and very often influence each other.

Thanks, this proves my point.

Does the EXECUTIVE BRANCH mean anything to you?

How about the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH?

...and JUST for S's and G's, the JUDICIAL BRANCH?

Ok, how about the Balance of Power?

Now who is it that's the moron?

...yes, they ARE 2 COMPLETELY different entities with 2 COMPLETELY different roles.


Might want to read up on this:


<a href='http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html' target='_blank'>U.S. Constitution</a>

Before you EVER debate someone that already HAS a degree, much less one that has already taken, and passed with A's, Poly-Sci courses.

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Why did I put the word "completely" in there? Because while technically congress and President are two separate roles, they are <span style='color:red'>both part of the same governmental branch</span>, perform many of the same functions, and very often influence each other.

Thanks, this proves my point.

Does the EXECUTIVE BRANCH mean anything to you?

How about the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH?

...and JUST for S's and G's, the JUDICIAL BRANCH?

Ok, how about the Balance of Power?

Now who is it that's the moron?

Hell, look, you are RIGHT on that point... I made a mistake. Someone made a concession that they were wrong. Has that ever happened for you, RebelKev, or are you always right?

The greater issue still remains, however, how much control the president and congress have on each other. Checks and balances actually help my argument, my friend... so does the balance of power. The congress itself is not a free standing faculty; just as the presidency isn't, either. They are intertwined within the governmental system. Therefore, it's not solely congress who spends, or passes laws that help the economy, it's the president too. Hell, if Clinton wanted to raise hell on what Congress was doing, he could have.

nate jonesacc Wrote:

Quote:Thanks, this proves my point.

Does the EXECUTIVE BRANCH mean anything to you?

How about the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH?

...and JUST for S's and G's, the JUDICIAL BRANCH?

Ok, how about the Balance of Power?

Now who is it that's the moron?

Hell, look, you are RIGHT on that point... I made a mistake. Someone made a concession that they were wrong. Has that ever happened for you, RebelKev, or are you always right?

The greater issue still remains, however, how much control the president and congress have on each other. Checks and balances actually help my argument, my friend... so does the balance of power. The congress itself is not a free standing faculty; just as the presidency isn't, either. They are intertwined within the governmental system. Therefore, it's not solely congress who spends, or passes laws that help the economy, it's the president too. Hell, if Clinton wanted to raise hell on what Congress was doing, he could have.

Nate, I would have been civil and I usually try to be, but you CONSTANTLY call me a moron and an idiot. If it had remained civil, it would have been different. Hell, even "I" might have admitted if I was wrong. I usually don't start with name-calling, although I have to admit I have done it, but I generally tend to stay away from it until it becomes an issue between the two individuals that were actually trying to debate. When it becomes an argument between the two, and not the issues, I admit, I will lower myself.

Does the Pres have influence and vice-versa? Yes. Do they have power? Definately not; the way it should be.

No power? Wait... so if congress wants to pass a law that will affect the nation's economy in a great way... is it just me or can the President veto/pocket veto it?

Maybe it's the nature of us that even when lowered I can admit I'm wrong.

And I've noticed and others have noticed... that if you didn't go pontificating on every subject, others wouldn't be quite so confrontational toward you.

nate jonesacc Wrote:Maybe it's the nature of us that even when lowered I can admit I'm wrong.

I can as well, but was I wrong in this thread?

Again, the President's Veto power does NOT implicate that he has power over Congress. You don't seem to grasp the concept if "Balance of Power". They don't have to do a DAMN thing he wants and vice-versa. That's not the definition of power. Hell, even if BOTH branches support something, the Judicial can STILL deem it unconstitutional.

nate jonesacc Wrote:And I've noticed and others have noticed... that if you didn't go pontificating on every subject, others wouldn't be quite so confrontational toward you.

....and who's confrontational with me? It seems YOU are the one WHO everyone can't stand. Hell, I WANT confrontation. I live for it.