Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-14-2017, 06:21 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,603 posts, read 16,662,916 times
Reputation: 29753

Advertisements

Below is a post concerning one of the many ludicrous regulations that Obama would never have dared issue while his party was facing re-election. Others are the repeal of the "wet-foot, dry-foot"
rules applicable to Cubans, and the Continental shelf regulations. How about sending to Trump's desk, on January 22, 2017, the first business day of the new term, rescinding all regulations issued after November 8, 2016, unless Trump specifically, within say 15 days, preserves them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyp25 View Post
The Army has issued a new regulation: Effective immediately, brigade-level commanders will be able to grant accommodations to servicemen and women who wear beards, turbans, or hijabs for religious reasons—the three most common requests for waivers to current guidelines on grooming and dress, according to a letter from the Secretary of the Army, Eric Fanning. The new guidelines also revise hairstyle standards for female soldiers: They can now wear dreadlocks in addition to cornrows and twists, which were allowed in a revision made in 2014.* Like other hairstyles, locks must be relatively small, uniform, neat, and tied off inconspicuously, and women don’t have to request an accommodation to wear them.

Obama is on a roll for these last few weeks.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coming-so...223705056.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2017, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,527,253 times
Reputation: 20674
There another active thread on this topic.

As it relates to the topic, Reagan signed off on the legislation requiring religious accommodation.

Here's the back story:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_v._Weinberger
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 06:42 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,603 posts, read 16,662,916 times
Reputation: 29753
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
There another active thread on this topic.

As it relates to the topic, Reagan signed off on the legislation requiring religious accommodation.

Here's the back story:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_v._Weinberger
What is the URL for that thread? I'll "report" my own post and try to get the threads merged. My apologies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 06:54 PM
 
4,983 posts, read 3,276,647 times
Reputation: 2739
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
There another active thread on this topic.

As it relates to the topic, Reagan signed off on the legislation requiring religious accommodation.

Here's the back story:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_v._Weinberger
Reagan wasn't perfect. His amnesty deal is more proof of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 07:22 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,939 posts, read 17,764,128 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ih2puo View Post
Reagan wasn't perfect. His amnesty deal is more proof of that.
Yea, it was a cop out. The house didn't have the votes to over ride a veto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2017, 10:29 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,603 posts, read 16,662,916 times
Reputation: 29753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Yea, it was a cop out. The house didn't have the votes to over ride a veto.
How does this relate to the question of whether Congress should draft and send to the President's desk statute rescinding the midnight regulations?

Last edited by Ibginnie; 01-15-2017 at 07:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2017, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,939 posts, read 17,764,128 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
How does this relate to the question of whether Congress should drat and send to the President's desk statute rescinding the midnight regulations?
Stupid is what stupid does. Get it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2017, 07:08 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,603 posts, read 16,662,916 times
Reputation: 29753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Stupid is what stupid does. Get it?
No. Not at all. Can you explain?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top