The Real Mitt Romney

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

Actually, the executive branch DOES make the bills, into laws, by signing them (normally).

But you're quite right that we do need a Conservative House of Rep. and Senate, to help him.

Or you can listen to the mad ravings of Nancy Pelosi!

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation.

That will not solve the problem of an inactive Congress either because there will always be varying degrees of everything, even Conservatives, and they will oppose each other for the sake of image and career. Plenty of times they've been too busy focused on calling each other out, posturing, blocking, and whining within their own ideology, trying to prove themselves More Conservative Than That Guy/Gal instead of putting that energy towards work that they actually support. Liberals do it too. Tea Partiers do it. Libertarians do it. They all do it. Even independents will argue with each other over how independent they are/aren't. If you take out the visceral need to one-up the other guy, Congress would get a lot more done, regardless who's sitting in the seat.

And if we're going to pick even smaller nits, the Executive Branch does not create any laws. It only signs off on(or not, if they don't sign) a final submission and that finalization turns it into law. It does none of the actual writing, scripting, lawyering, debating, pushing, blocking, etc. All of the making, all of the creating, all of the growth of a bill is done in Congress. Executive Branch is only a cheerleader here.

And for the record, I don't give Pelosi a second thought. Or a first one. Unless someone invokes her, like you did. Then I promptly forget about her. Until you invoke her again, which I'm sure won't take long.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation.

WHAT?? The legislative branch of the federal government is NOT RELEVANT to the actual process of legislation??

Thanks for the laughs.

That will not solve the problem of an inactive Congress either because there will always be varying degrees of everything, even Conservatives, and they will oppose each other for the sake of image and career. Plenty of times they've been too busy focused on calling each other out, posturing, blocking, and whining within their own ideology, trying to prove themselves More Conservative Than That Guy/Gal instead of putting that energy towards work that they actually support. Liberals do it too. Tea Partiers do it. Libertarians do it. They all do it. Even independents will argue with each other over how independent they are/aren't. If you take out the visceral need to one-up the other guy, Congress would get a lot more done, regardless who's sitting in the seat.

Absolutely, I agree. We see it all the time, especially in the primaries.

And if we're going to pick even smaller nits, the Executive Branch does not create any laws. It only signs off on(or not, if they don't sign) a final submission and that finalization turns it into law. It does none of the actual writing, scripting, lawyering, debating, pushing, blocking, etc. All of the making, all of the creating, all of the growth of a bill is done in Congress. Executive Branch is only a cheerleader here.

The President will have input into legislation he will favor, but he does not write any of the bills for either legislative branch.

And for the record, I don't give Pelosi a second thought. Or a first one. Unless someone invokes her, like you did. Then I promptly forget about her. Until you invoke her again, which I'm sure won't take long.

Oh, we could torture you with the socialist Maxine Waters! Have you met Ms Waters? She's so far left, right has disappeared entirely from her universe.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

WHAT?? The legislative branch of the federal government is NOT RELEVANT to the actual process of legislation??

Thanks for the laughs.

Nice pivot, son.

Re-read my statement:

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation.

Allow me to rephrase it since you completely missed the point. Twice.

The political leanings of the members of the House and Senate have nothing to do with the actual process of legislation.




$5 says my words get spun again.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Nice pivot, son.

Allow me to rephrase it since you completely missed the point. Twice.
The political leanings of the members of the House and Senate have nothing to do with the actual process of legislation.

$5 says my words get spun again.

Well, I'm retired, so I'm probably not your "son", but you've skipped a few Poli Sci or Civics classes, somewhere along the way.

The President signs the bills, and he requests bills (as FDR famously did right after Pearl Harbor, in his "date that shall live in infamy" speech to Congress). But the House and the Senate must pass bills, BEFORE they ever reach the President and can be signed into law by him (or not).

So it's takes both the House and Senate, and usually the President (unless the Congress overrides his veto), to pass a bill, and enact it as a law.

Are you referring to the attorneys who write the bills? That's called "authoring", not legislating.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

Well, I'm retired, so I'm probably not your "son", but you've skipped a few Poli Sci or Civics classes, somewhere along the way.

The President signs the bills, and he requests bills (as FDR famously did right after Pearl Harbor, in his "date that shall live in infamy" speech to Congress). But the House and the Senate must pass bills, BEFORE they ever reach the President and can be signed into law by him (or not).

So it's takes both the House and Senate, and usually the President (unless the Congress overrides his veto), to pass a bill, and enact it as a law.

Are you referring to the attorneys who write the bills? That's called "authoring", not legislating.

Nah, if I had a son, he'd be more forthright. And no, you're wrong again. I had to slog through Civics classes in high school. And I'm still technically correct. The President does request bills, this is correct. The Presidential office is one of several places bills can come from. That is just a request, borne of an idea. Sure, the request will be written down but that in itself is not the bill. Later on, he can speak with House and Senate members/leaders to get them to pass it, champion the cause. All of the actual making, creating, AUTHORING is done by Congress. After the bill is made, written, debated, revised, rewritten, re-debated and passed (if it does), then and only then does it go back to the President for any tangible action, the signing.

This is starting to get into word usage and similar semantics so... potato, potahto.

And just out of curiosity, exactly how many Civics and Poli-Sci classes have you taken to be so impliedly qualified to speak on legislative processes? I wasn't aware there was a required number. How many does one need to take? Is there a certification?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Nah, if I had a son, he'd be more forthright. And no, you're wrong again. I had to slog through Civics classes in high school. And I'm still technically correct. The President does request bills, this is correct.

Correct is as I stated, the President MAY request bills.

The Presidential office is one of several places bills can come from. That is just a request, borne of an idea. Sure, the request will be written down but that in itself is not the bill. Later on, he can speak with House and Senate members/leaders to get them to pass it, champion the cause. All of the actual making, creating, AUTHORING is done by Congress. After the bill is made, written, debated, revised, rewritten, re-debated and passed (if it does), then and only then does it go back to the President for any tangible action, the signing.

This is starting to get into word usage and similar semantics so... potato, potahto.

Yes, and you've come around nicely. The above is correct.

And just out of curiosity, exactly how many Civics and Poli-Sci classes have you taken to be so impliedly qualified to speak on legislative processes? I wasn't aware there was a required number. How many does one need to take? Is there a certification?

I'm not sure. You had to take at least one class in junior high, and a World History class in 10th grade (iirc). I'm not sure what you needed beyond that to graduate from high school, because I went into advanced courses offered from the college, while a Senior in high school. That's where I took Poli Sci.

The hard part was getting papers typed. High school didn't require that, and I didn't have a typewriter. Finally got an old manual one.

I had all A's in history classes, but this was the best in a large high school of 3,500 students, so everybody in there was REALLY smart. Most were smarter than I was, getting A's in every subject. Our instructor was a Marine Major, who was seriously smart.

He used to joke when the smartest guys were out of the class, that he should mark their papers down to a 'B', and we could watch them melt into a little spot of grease on their desk. It was funny the way he told it, but of course, he never did it.

I remember Paul Hall was perhaps the smartest student in the class, but he loved to "debate" (argue). Finally he went overboard with it, and was kicked out of the class for arguing with the instructor. What was the instructor saying that he had to argue against? That millions of people died in WWII!! We were stunned, I can tell you.

Days gone by.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

Yes, and you've come around nicely.

Yes, you indeed have, especially since I haven't changed what I was saying at all, just how I said it. That seemed to work for you. Cheers, I guess.

I'm not sure. You had to take at least one class in junior high, and a World History class in 10th grade (iirc). I'm not sure what you needed beyond that to graduate from high school, because I went into advanced courses offered from the college, while a Senior in high school. That's where I took Poli Sci.

The hard part was getting papers typed. High school didn't require that, and I didn't have a typewriter. Finally got an old manual one.

I had all A's in history classes, but this was the best in a large high school of 3,500 students, so everybody in there was REALLY smart. Most were smarter than I was, getting A's in every subject. Our instructor was a Marine Major, who was seriously smart.

He used to joke when the smartest guys were out of the class, that he should mark their papers down to a 'B', and we could watch them melt into a little spot of grease on their desk. It was funny the way he told it, but of course, he never did it.

I remember Paul Hall was perhaps the smartest student in the class, but he loved to "debate" (argue). Finally he went overboard with it, and was kicked out of the class for arguing with the instructor. What was the instructor saying that he had to argue against? That millions of people died in WWII!! We were stunned, I can tell you.

Days gone by.

Interesting in it's way, and I'm sure civics curricula vary from public vs private school and where the schools are, not to mention my high school and college years were in a very different era than yours, Retired. And when you mention history, I assume you mean specifically American history, not world history or ancient history or similar. But it given that, it seems plenty of pundits, marketing ad writers and bumper-sticker writers never got even a single civics class, considering how they insist the President is the be-all-end-all on policy-making and whether or not an idea becomes law is all down to him.


Of course, if they did, then the one-line zingers wouldn't be as marketable.