Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: andreisdaman on September 01, 2015, 05:21:34 PM
-
http://www.occupydemocrats.com/watch-maddow-destroys-republicans-obama-executive-order-freak-out-in-4-minutes/
Just wanted to dispel the continuing lie that president Obama has become an "emperor" in the words of Republicans by using executive orders to push his agenda.....of course this is hysterical just like all the other republican reactions......actually Obama has used less executive Orders than ANY PRESIDENT IN RECENT HISTORY...check out the link above which destroys the Republican myth of Obama's use of exec orders..
-
It's not the number, but the content.
-
sad but true. I'd argue his had greater impact, such as amnesty.
then i'd counter-argue that republicans endorsed it by not impeaching his ass after fast & furious.
then i'd double-counter-argue that F&F was just a continuation of Bush's policy of handing guns to bad guys
it's so tiring.
-
It's not the number, but the content.
I'm dispelling the specific notion that the Repubs claim Obama is an "emperor" who is ruling by decree......look at all the other presidents who did the same but even more than Obama....especially the Repub presidents......are they emperors too?????????????
-
It's not the number, but the content.
It's not the content, but the whining from the GOP.
-
It's not the number, but the content.
'
which were the 3 worst executive orders obama has given us, dos equis?
you dont have to answer if you dont know.
-
It's not the content, but the whining from the GOP.
I've never seen such immature crying in politics....and the conservatives get their base worked up and then in the end they have egg on their faces and they let their constituents down
-
I've never seen such immature crying in politics....and the conservatives get their base worked up and then in the end they have egg on their faces and they let their constituents down
"Just give us the Senate, we'll finally stop obama".
Nothing has stopped, nothing has changed. They're not impeaching. Rather, they got in bed with him on the 1.4 trillion dollar monstrosity for a budget. They showed they're complicit in obama's crimes.
"Just give us the senate, we'll change things!" Bullshit.
-
I'm dispelling the specific notion that the Repubs claim Obama is an "emperor" who is ruling by decree......look at all the other presidents who did the same but even more than Obama....especially the Repub presidents......are they emperors too?????????????
You're not dispelling any notion. You cannot look at the number of executive orders. One incredibly bad EO is worse than 50 good EOs
-
I've never seen such immature crying in politics....and the conservatives get their base worked up and then in the end they have egg on their faces and they let their constituents down
-
You're not dispelling any notion. You cannot look at the number of executive orders. One incredibly bad EO is worse than 50 good EOs
WOW..you are doing some serious backpeddling......who can say which exec order is worse or better...its in the eye of the beholder...and with what makes sense
-
You're not dispelling any notion. You cannot look at the number of executive orders. One incredibly bad EO is worse than 50 good EOs
How is "bad" defined? By your opinion?
-
How is "bad" defined? By your opinion?
you seconded my point above....good job
-
WOW..you are doing some serious backpeddling......who can say which exec order is worse or better...its in the eye of the beholder...and with what makes sense
Back peddling on what?
Pretty obvious that the kind of EO that grants amnesty to millions of illegals is pretty bad, especially when the president admitted it exceeded his Constitutional authority.
-
How is "bad" defined? By your opinion?
Granting amnesty to millions of illegals, after the president repeatedly acknowledges he lacks the Constitutional power to do so.
-
Back peddling on what?
Pretty obvious that the kind of EO that grants amnesty to millions of illegals is pretty bad, especially when the president admitted it exceeded his Constitutional authority.
Reagan did the same thing........Didn't hear ANY crying then.......WONDER WHY????????????
-
Granting amnesty to millions of illegals, after the president repeatedly acknowledges he lacks the Constitutional power to do so.
Tough one there, calling out Amnesty as obama's fault.
At some point - EVERY repub presidential hopeful supported amnesty:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/15/by-standards-of-immigration-hawks-all-2016-gop-contenders-support-amnesty/
And if you really want to get into Boehnner and Mcconnell pushing the house AND senate off the amnesty cliff, you can...
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/02/13/senate-gop-leaders-prepare-to-cave-on-amnesty/
Amnesty was a shitbag that idiots from both parties supported. It was essentially the same deal Reagan gave us, and we know how you all love him.
-
Reagan did the same thing........Didn't hear ANY crying then.......WONDER WHY????????????
Moral equivalency again? How shocking.
1. What back peddling am I doing?
2. Were you actually looking for people to "cry" when Reagan issues his executive orders 30 years ago? Were you even following politics then?
3. What does any of this have to do with Obama's unconstitutional amnesty executive order?
-
Tough one there, calling out Amnesty as obama's fault.
At some point - EVERY repub presidential hopeful supported amnesty:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/15/by-standards-of-immigration-hawks-all-2016-gop-contenders-support-amnesty/
And if you really want to get into Boehnner and Mcconnell pushing the house AND senate off the amnesty cliff, you can...
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/02/13/senate-gop-leaders-prepare-to-cave-on-amnesty/
Amnesty was a shitbag that idiots from both parties supported. It was essentially the same deal Reagan gave us, and we know how you all love him.
Also Obama practically BEGGED the Republicans to tackle the issue and they refused...just sat on it in congress....so Obama made the decision for them
-
Moral equivalency again? How shocking.
1. What back peddling am I doing?
2. Were you actually looking for people to "cry" when Reagan issues his executive orders 30 years ago? Were you even following politics then?
3. What does any of this have to do with Obama's unconstitutional amnesty executive order?
No moral equivalency at all...just pointing out HYPOCRISY by the GOP...your guy can do it but when our guy does it, he should be impeached and is an emperor???????????..........and yes I was following politics then or else how would I know that Reagan did the same thing....
-
Also Obama practically BEGGED the Republicans to tackle the issue and they refused...just sat on it in congress....so Obama made the decision for them
they didn't want to piss off hispanics (romney only got 27% hisp vote, while bush got 44%). They'll never win a prez election again with those kinda numbers.
they didn't want to piss off the base - Eric cantor got kicked to the curb by being the first major pro-amnesty canddiate. the rest realized it's political suicide.
So rather than be strong on it, either way, they just STFU and yelled about obama. It's like seeing a puppy drowining, and not wanting to piss off your kids, who love the puppy, by letting it drown... but not wanting to piss off the cat, who hates the puppy, by rescuing it... So you just let it drown and blame whoever left the damn door open to let the puppy in the pool, in ths first place. Fail thru inaction.
-
Granting amnesty to millions of illegals, after the president repeatedly acknowledges he lacks the Constitutional power to do so.
let me help you with some more examples. you're doing a terrible job defending your argument here -
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/02/04/ruth-marcus-obama-executive-order/
-
Granting amnesty to millions of illegals, after the president repeatedly acknowledges he lacks the Constitutional power to do so.
Who said that is "bad"? Certainly not the Repubs that have already supported the idea and stated their views along the same lines.
-
No moral equivalency at all...just pointing out HYPOCRISY by the GOP...your guy can do it but when our guy does it, he should be impeached and is an emperor???????????..........and yes I was following politics then or else how would I know that Reagan did the same thing....
What back peddling am I doing?
Yes, it is moral equivalency.
The hypocrisy argument is pretty weak. I doubt the people who are justifiably complaining about Obama's admitted unconstitutional EO were around 30 years ago when Reagan did something that was actually different. But even if they were, who cares?
-
Who said that is "bad"? Certainly not the Repubs that have already supported the idea and stated their views along the same lines.
I say it's bad. Obama said it was unconstitutional more than 20 times before he signed it. The judge who stopped it said it was bad. I'm sure millions of Americans think it's bad too.
-
What back peddling am I doing?
Yes, it is moral equivalency.
The hypocrisy argument is pretty weak. I doubt the people who are justifiably complaining about Obama's admitted unconstitutional EO were around 30 years ago when Reagan did something that was actually different. But even if they were, who cares?
so what you're saying is that it is quite alright to make a false claim that Obama is abusing his authority in using exec orders and that his amnesty exec order was unconstitutional when other presidents in the GOP set a precedent by doing the same......yet no call for impeachment then...
GOTCHA
-
so what you're saying is that it is quite alright to make a false claim that Obama is abusing his authority in using exec orders and that his amnesty exec order was unconstitutional when other presidents in the GOP set a precedent by doing the same......yet no call for impeachment then...
GOTCHA
What I'm saying is you obviously pulled your contention that I'm "back peddling" out of your rear end.
That moral equivalency is an incredibly weak, but often used argument, particularly by liberals.
That your hypocrisy argument is not credible for the reasons I already stated.
That Obama admitted he lacked the power to what he tried to do. Which was unlike what any prior president had done. And even if it was similar, it's still unconstitutional.
That none of this has anything to do with whether or not Obama issued an admitted unconstitutional EO trying to grant amnesty to millions of illegals. I am glad he was checked by the courts. Checks and balances working on this one. At least so far.
-
22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law
November 19, 2014
Matt Wolking
With the White House poised to grant executive amnesty any day now despite the American people’s staunch opposition, on Sunday President Obama was asked about the many, many statements he made in the past about his inability to unilaterally change or ignore immigration law. His response was astonishingly brazen: “Actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress.”
This is a flagrant untruth: “In fact, most of the questions that were posed to the president over the past several years were about the very thing that he is expected to announce within a matter of days,” reported The New York Times. “[T]he questions actually specifically addressed the sorts of actions that he is contemplating now,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker agreed, awarding President Obama the rare “Upside-Down Pinocchio,” which signifies “a major-league flip-flop.” Even FactCheck.org piled on.
President Obama is once again trying to mislead Americans, but he can’t run from what he’s said over and over (and over) again. Not only are Americans not stupid – they can read:
“I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)
“We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08)
“Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)
“[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.
Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)
“I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are changed.” (10/14/10)
“I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)
“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)
“I can't solve this problem by myself. … [W]e're going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. … I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I'm confident we can make it happen.” (4/20/11)
“I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.” (4/29/11)
“Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing.” (5/10/11)
“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)
“So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed. … The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.” (9/28/11)
In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing “eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety … to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.” He then argued that he had already done everything he could legally do on his own:
“Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’” (9/20/12)
“We are a nation of immigrants. … But we're also a nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my own[.]” (10/16/12)
“I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law. And that's what we've done. But what I've also said is, let's make sure that we're applying the law in a way that takes into account people's humanity. That's the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.” (1/30/13)
“I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books. … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it.” (1/30/13)
“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.” (2/14/13)
“I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people …. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.” (7/16/13)
“My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. … What I've said is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's through Congress.” (9/17/13)
“f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.” (11/25/13)
“I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there. What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers …. That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.” (3/6/14)
“I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power]. I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting.” (8/6/14)
President Obama should listen to President Obama, drop his plan to “expand the authority of the executive branch into murky, uncharted territory,” and work with Congress rather than insisting on his stubborn, “my way or the highway” approach.
http://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times-president-obama-said-he-couldn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law#sthash.8HvrDgIZ.dpuf
-
I will acknowledge your article above...BUT...as I have said....President Obama THOUGHT that he could deal in good faith with congress concerning this issue....HOWEVER he began to realize that congress and the Republicans were basically running out the clock and had no intention to deal with him on this issue...SO...he decided to take matters into his own hands instead of being held hostage an paralyzed by the conservatives.....
Obama got something done on the issue...how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN constantly votes against him on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE???...what exactly does that tell you???
also I have no problem with expanding the powers of the President...Congress is too dysfunctional at this point in history to get ANYTHING done
-
Thats their job retard....and by the way Obozo has issued far more presidential memo's then any other president. They hold the same power and do the same things. He has damaged this country beyond repair and should be held accountable when this once great coutry crumbles.
-
Thats their job retard....and by the way Obozo has issued far more presidential memo's then any other president. They hold the same power and do the same things. He has damaged this country beyond repair and should be held accountable when this once great coutry crumbles.
I guess you didn't read the article concerning the number of exec orders.....and no..I'm not a retard.....its not the republican's role to constantly and mindlessly vote against the president.....its their job to vote their conscience and whats best for the Ametrican people.....many Democrats vote against the president....why is it that every single Republican votes the same way every single time?????..does that make ANY sense to you?????
it shows they don't give a hell about you...only about their agenda
-
Thats their job retard....and by the way Obozo has issued far more presidential memo's then any other president. They hold the same power and do the same things. He has damaged this country beyond repair and should be held accountable when this once great coutry crumbles.
1. No, it's really not.
Their job is to do what's best for their constituents, which virtually no politician does, but the average person is too stupid to realize it.
2. Really?
What did he do that was irreparable... Please list the things... I'll wait.
You act like in 8 years Obama crushed our economy and got us into wars costing trillions.
Wrong guy.
If Bush didn't do irreparable damage to our country, and I don't think he did, then whatever Obama has done, CERTAINLY, isn't irreparable.
As a matter of fact, I would like to know what you think these irreparable things are he's done?
You going to take away the health care bill? Seems to me that the Republicans spent the better part of 2 years saying they would repeal it... Didn't happen.
What the hell else has Obama done?
Seriously... What did he do that is irreparable?
Patriot Act? Didn't seem to destroy the country when we had it, and it's still mostly there.
So I seriously question your understanding of the statement "beyond repair".
-
I will acknowledge your article above...BUT...as I have said....President Obama THOUGHT that he could deal in good faith with congress concerning this issue....HOWEVER he began to realize that congress and the Republicans were basically running out the clock and had no intention to deal with him on this issue...SO...he decided to take matters into his own hands instead of being held hostage an paralyzed by the conservatives.....
Obama got something done on the issue...how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN constantly votes against him on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE???...what exactly does that tell you???
also I have no problem with expanding the powers of the President...Congress is too dysfunctional at this point in history to get ANYTHING done
That's not how our government works. The president doesn't get to make law just because he's too poor of a leader to build consensus. Even if it's just obstruction, he doesn't get to change the law. Congress passes laws, the presidents enforces, and the courts interpret. That's how the separation of powers can and should work. No one who cares about this country should be comfortable with what that man has done.
-
That's not how our government works. The president doesn't get to make law just because he's too poor of a leader to build consensus. Even if it's just obstruction, he doesn't get to change the law. Congress passes laws, the presidents enforces, and the courts interpret. That's how the separation of powers can and should work. No one who cares about this country should be comfortable with what that man has done.
Ok. Let me ask you this.
Why didn't you jump up and down when Bush did the same things.
We are talking about executive orders right? Forget the type of order... The fact he is usurping the law is the problem. So why didn't you get angry at the previous guy doing the same thing?
-
Ok. Let me ask you this.
Why didn't you jump up and down when Bush did the same things.
We are talking about executive orders right? Forget the type of order... The fact he is usurping the law is the problem. So why didn't you get angry at the previous guy doing the same thing?
I'm not jumping up and down now. I'm also unaware of Bush signing an executive order in clear violation of his Constitutional authority, after acknowledging repeatedly that he had no authority to do so.
And what difference does it make if I did or did not get angry based on some non-existent EO signed by Bush? Are you saying that somehow justifies Obama's unconstitutional EO?
-
I will acknowledge your article above...BUT...as I have said....President Obama THOUGHT that he could deal in good faith with congress concerning this issue....HOWEVER he began to realize that congress and the Republicans were basically running out the clock and had no intention to deal with him on this issue...SO...he decided to take matters into his own hands instead of being held hostage an paralyzed by the conservatives.....
Obama got something done on the issue...how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN constantly votes against him on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE???...what exactly does that tell you???
also I have no problem with expanding the powers of the President...Congress is too dysfunctional at this point in history to get ANYTHING done
You really don't know WTF you're saying.
-
Obozo has issued far more presidential memo's then any other president.
beach just told us the overall number of them doesn't matter.
-
I'm not jumping up and down now. I'm also unaware of Bush signing an executive order in clear violation of his Constitutional authority, after acknowledging repeatedly that he had no authority to do so.
And what difference does it make if I did or did not get angry based on some non-existent EO signed by Bush? Are you saying that somehow justifies Obama's unconstitutional EO?
Nope.
I'm saying it makes you a hypocrite.
I jumped up over Bush... Obama... Anytime they do what they shouldn't be legally allowed to do, I say so and I get angry.
Being silent at one time because of a political affiliation is just sad.
-
Nope.
I'm saying it makes you a hypocrite.
I jumped up over Bush... Obama... Anytime they do what they shouldn't be legally allowed to do, I say so and I get angry.
Being silent at one time because of a political affiliation is just sad.
No it doesn't. A hypocrite is someone who doesn't practice what they preach. Plus you haven't given me an example of Bush knowingly signing an unconstitutional EO, and me being silent about it, ten years ago. Not that it would make a hill of beans difference about what Obama has been doing.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama knowingly signing an unconstitutional EO.
-
No it doesn't. A hypocrite is someone who doesn't practice what they preach. Plus you haven't given me an example of Bush knowingly signing an unconstitutional EO, and me being silent about it, ten years ago. Not that it would make a hill of beans difference about what Obama has been doing.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama knowingly signing an unconstitutional EO.
First of All... ALL executive orders are unconstitutional, as the constitution provides NO CLAUSE for executive orders.
That's the point.
You were completely silent.
It is all connected because ALL executive orders are unconstitutional.
-
First of All... ALL executive orders are unconstitutional, as the constitution provides NO CLAUSE for executive orders.
That's the point.
You were completely silent.
It is all connected because ALL executive orders are unconstitutional.
No, all EOs re not unconstitutional.
I was completely silent about some unnamed, non-existent unconstitutional EO issued by Bush? Yeah, I agree with that.
-
No, all EOs re not unconstitutional.
I was completely silent about some unnamed, non-existent unconstitutional EO issued by Bush? Yeah, I agree with that.
Yes they are.
This shows what you think you know vs. what you know.
Executive orders are unconstitutional because the constitution has no provision for them.
Hence they are unconstitutional.
Good thing constitutional law isn't your forte.
-
Let's be specific since you want to play that game.
President George W. Bush issued several controversial executive orders surrounding the gathering of intelligence in the war on terror. Arguably the most controversial was a secret executive order he signed in 2002, authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone calls made by U.S. citizens and others living in the United States.
Those are extremely unconstitutional.
-
Yes they are.
This shows what you think you know vs. what you know.
Executive orders are unconstitutional because the constitution has no provision for them.
Hence they are unconstitutional.
Good thing constitutional law isn't your forte.
Really? So all those courts that have addressed EOs are just flat out wrong?
Constitutional law clearly isn't your forte.
And what does any of this have to do with Obama's unconstitutional EO?
-
Let's be specific since you want to play that game.
President George W. Bush issued several controversial executive orders surrounding the gathering of intelligence in the war on terror. Arguably the most controversial was a secret executive order he signed in 2002, authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone calls made by U.S. citizens and others living in the United States.
Those are extremely unconstitutional.
If Bush issued an EO in 2002 allowing the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant, I am opposed to that. I have stated on this board, repeatedly, that I am opposed to warrantless searches.
Now tell me again what this has to do with Obama's unconstitutional EO?
-
Really? So all those courts that have addressed EOs are just flat out wrong?
Constitutional law clearly isn't your forte.
And what does any of this have to do with Obama's unconstitutional EO?
Yes, they are flat out wrong.
There are many constitutional lawyers who will agree with me. Just because some federal judges decide otherwise because their boy is in office doesn't change that fact.
-
Yes, they are flat out wrong.
There are many constitutional lawyers who will agree with me. Just because some federal judges decide otherwise because their boy is in office doesn't change that fact.
You can find people who will tell you the income tax is unconstitutional. That's not how things work.
-
You can find people who will tell you the income tax is unconstitutional. That's not how things work.
Income tax IS unconstitutional.
Just because the government holds you hostage at the power of the gun doesn't change the legality.
We are not talking about whether people do them or not... Whether it happens or not. We are talking about it being unconstitutional.
Which it is.
-
Income tax IS unconstitutional.
Just because the government holds you hostage at the power of the gun doesn't change the legality.
We are not talking about whether people do them or not... Whether it happens or not. We are talking about it being unconstitutional.
Which it is.
Are you a tax protester? Things never end well for those folks. Good luck with that.
If you disagree with the law you can work to change it. Or disobey it. Or move. But at the end of the day, the way the system works is Congress passes, the president enforces, and the courts interpret.
I don't agree with everything that comes out of that process, but again, this really doesn't have anything to do with Obama's unconstitutional EO.
-
Are you a tax protester? Things never end well for those folks. Good luck with that.
If you disagree with the law you can work to change it. Or disobey it. Or move. But at the end of the day, the way the system works is Congress passes, the president enforces, and the courts interpret.
I don't agree with everything that comes out of that process, but again, this really doesn't have anything to do with Obama's unconstitutional EO.
Yes it does.... because as I said... ALL EOs are unconstitutional.
The fact you don't see the root of the problem is why discussions don't work between us.
-
i would be very surprised to learn some of these guys were against bush for the same type things they oppose obama on. very surprised. i'd be shocked.
i know there are some hopelessly clueless among us, but this is a much more destructive mindset than that.
-
Yes it does.... because as I said... ALL EOs are unconstitutional.
The fact you don't see the root of the problem is why discussions don't work between us.
I disagree with your "root of the problem." When you start with a false premise, your entire position is usually pretty weak. We can agree to disagree about whether all EOs are unconstitutional.
-
I disagree with your "root of the problem." When you start with a false premise, your entire position is usually pretty weak. We can agree to disagree about whether all EOs are unconstitutional.
Oh, I'm sure we will.
As the constitution states."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
As the constitution provides no clause for executive orders... Or rather, it is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, they are illegal.
-
LOL @ it's only wrong to circumvent the constitutional process when I dislike the laws being enacted".
hahahah
-
You really don't know WTF you're saying.
explain
-
1. No, it's really not.
Their job is to do what's best for their constituents, which virtually no politician does, but the average person is too stupid to realize it.
2. Really?
What did he do that was irreparable... Please list the things... I'll wait.
You act like in 8 years Obama crushed our economy and got us into wars costing trillions.
Wrong guy.
If Bush didn't do irreparable damage to our country, and I don't think he did, then whatever Obama has done, CERTAINLY, isn't irreparable.
As a matter of fact, I would like to know what you think these irreparable things are he's done?
You going to take away the health care bill? Seems to me that the Republicans spent the better part of 2 years saying they would repeal it... Didn't happen.
What the hell else has Obama done?
Seriously... What did he do that is irreparable?
Patriot Act? Didn't seem to destroy the country when we had it, and it's still mostly there.
So I seriously question your understanding of the statement "beyond repair".
Excellent post....and truthful
-
That's not how our government works. The president doesn't get to make law just because he's too poor of a leader to build consensus. Even if it's just obstruction, he doesn't get to change the law. Congress passes laws, the presidents enforces, and the courts interpret. That's how the separation of powers can and should work. No one who cares about this country should be comfortable with what that man has done.
you're amazing...but this type of opinion is expected of someone who obviously hasn't followed whats going on and has an agenda.....ANYONE who has followed politics can see that the republicans NEVER had any intention of working with Obama....they basically said so from the beginning....they did not want anything to pass out of congress and this is why the congress of the last few years has not done much..
By the way..we're all STILL waiting for the Republican alternative to Obamacare.....and also the Republican plan for immigration reform....their strategy is to make attempts to repeal something by promising an alternative but then nothing appears......
as for president do not make the law, how about Bill Clinton's "don't ask don't tell"???...which was a very major shift in military rules....what about Reagan's own amnesty on illegal aliens???
DESTROYED....yet again
-
If Bush issued an EO in 2002 allowing the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant, I am opposed to that. I have stated on this board, repeatedly, that I am opposed to warrantless searches.
Now tell me again what this has to do with Obama's unconstitutional EO?
it may not relate to you much, but it DOES relate to the point of the Republicans calling for Obama's impeachment and saying he is an emperor when EO's are basically the NORM
-
explain
because the idea is to avoid placing too much trust in any one person. we can't afford to do that.
-
because the idea is to avoid placing too much trust in any one person. we can't afford to do that.
okay..valid argument
-
okay..valid argument
yes, it would be great if we could trust them (including the unknowns in the future), but we can't. terrible investment of trust.
-
you're amazing...but this type of opinion is expected of someone who obviously hasn't followed whats going on and has an agenda.....ANYONE who has followed politics can see that the republicans NEVER had any intention of working with Obama....they basically said so from the beginning....they did not want anything to pass out of congress and this is why the congress of the last few years has not done much..
By the way..we're all STILL waiting for the Republican alternative to Obamacare.....and also the Republican plan for immigration reform....their strategy is to make attempts to repeal something by promising an alternative but then nothing appears......
as for president do not make the law, how about Bill Clinton's "don't ask don't tell"???...which was a very major shift in military rules....what about Reagan's own amnesty on illegal aliens???
DESTROYED....yet again
The president doesn't get to violate the Constitution because he cannot get Congress to work with him. The remedy is to either build consensus and get the votes he needs or have his opponents voted out of office.
-
Maddow is a loon.
2 words: Executive Memorandum.
Don't forget about Obama's clever use of the "administrative branch".
Obamacare, Dodd Frank, Net Neutrality, and all of the EPA bullshit are just a few of the big govt monstrosities we didn't need that will do more harm than good.
Some of you guys really want to be controlled, over-taxed, and have your decisions and life micromanaged and ruled over by the federal govt and a king who you pretty much worship - it's hilarious.
Not a fan of Bush either myself. He made some very bad decisions and spent too much money. But it's time to quit bringing up Bush for comparison after all of these years every time someone makes a valid criticism of Obama.
-
Maddow is a loon.
2 words: Executive Memorandum.
Don't forget about Obama's clever use of the "administrative branch".
Obamacare, Dodd Frank, Net Neutrality, and all of the EPA bullshit are just a few of the big govt monstrosities we didn't need that will do more harm than good.
Some of you guys really want to be controlled, over-taxed, and have your decisions and life micromanaged and ruled over by the federal govt and a king who you pretty much worship - it's hilarious.
Not a fan of Bush either myself. He made some very bad decisions and spent too much money. But it's time to quit bringing up Bush for comparison after all of these years every time someone makes a valid criticism of Obama.
But it's perfectly OK by you to do in reverse, I'm sure.
-
But it's perfectly OK by you to do in reverse, I'm sure.
Sorry, I don't know what you're getting at. I've often stated I'm not a fan of Bush, if that's what you're trying to imply.
I am against big govt, period. I am a fiscal conservative and social libertarian who believes in states' rights, the constitution, and that the federal govt should do little more than provide national defense and a sensible foreign policy, along with protecting citizens from legit harm and fraud.
-
Sorry, I don't know what you're getting at. I've often stated I'm not a fan of Bush, if that's what you're trying to imply.
I am against big govt, period. I am a fiscal conservative and social libertarian who believes in states' rights, the constitution, and that the federal govt should do little more than provide national defense and a sensible foreign policy, along with protecting citizens from legit harm and fraud.
Yet you're not troubled by illegal immigration. Does it bother you to be inconsistent?
-
Maddow is a loon.
2 words: Executive Memorandum.
Don't forget about Obama's clever use of the "administrative branch".
Obamacare, Dodd Frank, Net Neutrality, and all of the EPA bullshit are just a few of the big govt monstrosities we didn't need that will do more harm than good.
Some of you guys really want to be controlled, over-taxed, and have your decisions and life micromanaged and ruled over by the federal govt and a king who you pretty much worship - it's hilarious.
Not a fan of Bush either myself. He made some very bad decisions and spent too much money. But it's time to quit bringing up Bush for comparison after all of these years every time someone makes a valid criticism of Obama.
Maddow is not a loon...she backs up all of her commentary with sources,....she doesn't just make pronouncements like some others
-
Maddow is not a loon...she backs up all of her commentary with sources,....she doesn't just make pronouncements like some others
Like Bill OReilly?
-
Yet you're not troubled by illegal immigration. Does it bother you to be inconsistent?
When have I ever said I was not at all concerned about illegal immigrants?
Speaking of "inconsistent", don't you think it's inconsistent to troll a member under one gimmick, while using at least one other gimmick to PM that same member for investment advice?
-
Maddow is not a loon...she backs up all of her commentary with sources,....she doesn't just make pronouncements like some others
She's a leftist loon propagandist.
-
She's a leftist loon propagandist.
She has her looney moments... Just like O'Reilly, Hannity, Matthews... They are all looney.
-
She has her looney moments... Just like O'Reilly, Hannity, Matthews... They are all looney.
But again...she sources her arguments
-
But again...she sources her arguments
I can not argue that when she goes full loon, she finds papers, numbers, and facts to back her position.
-
1. No, it's really not.
Their job is to do what's best for their constituents, which virtually no politician does, but the average person is too stupid to realize it.
2. Really?
What did he do that was irreparable... Please list the things... I'll wait.
You act like in 8 years Obama crushed our economy and got us into wars costing trillions.
Wrong guy.
If Bush didn't do irreparable damage to our country, and I don't think he did, then whatever Obama has done, CERTAINLY, isn't irreparable.
As a matter of fact, I would like to know what you think these irreparable things are he's done?
You going to take away the health care bill? Seems to me that the Republicans spent the better part of 2 years saying they would repeal it... Didn't happen.
What the hell else has Obama done?
Seriously... What did he do that is irreparable?
Patriot Act? Didn't seem to destroy the country when we had it, and it's still mostly there.
So I seriously question your understanding of the statement "beyond repair".
Must be a hell of a refute he is typing now.... for it to take this long and reply.
-
When have I ever said I was not at all concerned about illegal immigrants?
Speaking of "inconsistent", don't you think it's inconsistent to troll a member under one gimmick, while using at least one other gimmick to PM that same member for investment advice?
???
-
She has her looney moments... Just like O'Reilly, Hannity, Matthews... They are all looney.
They are all just playing a character while on TV/radio and usually appeal to the least intelligent of both parties. Usually the people who are the most hardcore republicans or hardcore democrats are the least educated. Most smart people are somewhere in between the two ends of the spectrum because they are able to think for themselves and form their own opinions on various social and fiscal issues, instead of needing to be told what to believe by either the right or the left.
-
They are all just playing a character while on TV/radio and usually appeal to the least intelligent of both parties. Usually the people who are the most hardcore republicans or hardcore democrats are the least educated. Most smart people are somewhere in between the two ends of the spectrum because they are able to think for themselves and form their own opinions on various social and fiscal issues, instead of needing to be told what to believe by either the right or the left.
I generally agree with your opinion in the case of Maddow she actually appeals to a more high functioning educated individual....someone who doesn't think or reason well would actually be turned off by her show....she talks fast , references things only those who follow politics really understand, and again sources all her material in the middle of her show
No way I would put her in the category of a Bill O'Reilly
-
I generally agree with your opinion in the case of Maddow she actually appeals to a more high functioning educated individual....someone who doesn't think or reason well would actually be turned off by her show....she talks fast , references things only those who follow politics really understand, and again sources all her material in the middle of her show
No way I would put her in the category of a Bill O'Reilly
Translation:
OOOGA BOOGA BOOGA OOG OOG OOGABAG OOGA BOOGA OOOGA RAPE RAPE OOGA BOOGA
-
Also Obama practically BEGGED the Republicans to tackle the issue and they refused...just sat on it in congress....so Obama made the decision for them
Why didn't Obama tackle the problem during his first two years, when the Dems ran all of Washington?
-
Why didn't Obama tackle the problem during his first two years, when the Dems ran all of Washington?
He prioritized the healthcare stuff.
Granted, I don't understand why it seems politicians can only do one thing at a time... As individuals we have to deal with stuff all the time... and often at the same time.
Congress basically handles one thing every year and they act like it's some kind of big deal.
Lazy fucks.
-
they didn't want to piss off hispanics (romney only got 27% hisp vote, while bush got 44%). They'll never win a prez election again with those kinda numbers.
they didn't want to piss off the base - Eric cantor got kicked to the curb by being the first major pro-amnesty canddiate. the rest realized it's political suicide.
So rather than be strong on it, either way, they just STFU and yelled about obama. It's like seeing a puppy drowining, and not wanting to piss off your kids, who love the puppy, by letting it drown... but not wanting to piss off the cat, who hates the puppy, by rescuing it... So you just let it drown and blame whoever left the damn door open to let the puppy in the pool, in ths first place. Fail thru inaction.
Reagan and Bush I won 3 landslides with about a third of the Latino vote.
Romney's latino numbers are immaterial. He got a bit less than normal but a slight bump in white voters would have put hi over the top.
The GOP needs to key on two demographics: working-class white males and older/married white women. If the GOP winner gets enough of those and about a third of the Latino vote (as normal), he/she wins it.
-
He prioritized the healthcare stuff.
Granted, I don't understand why it seems politicians can only do one thing at a time... As individuals we have to deal with stuff all the time... and often at the same time.
Congress basically handles one thing every year and they act like it's some kind of big deal.
Lazy fucks.
The Dems just want to use this issue against the GOP and, unfortunately, the RINOs fall for it: hook, line, and sinker. And, unlike Obamacare, there would have been RINOs to help pass amnesty in the Senate.
Not to mention, they want illegals for cheap labor.
-
The Dems just want to use this issue against the GOP and, unfortunately, the RINOs fall for it: hook, line, and sinker. And, unlike Obamacare, there would have been RINOs to help pass amnesty in the Senate.
Not to mention, they want illegals for cheap labor.
All valid points.
-
Why didn't Obama tackle the problem during his first two years, when the Dems ran all of Washington?
because he was dealing with things like...you know...the recession?....Obamacare?.....wall street and bank regulations?..etc....which was much more of a priority
you show up out of the blue just so I can destroy you again.
-
because he was dealing with things like...you know...the recession?....Obamacare?.....wall street and bank regulations?..etc....which was much more of a priority
you show up out of the blue just so I can destroy you again.
That isn't possible because you've have never destroyed me at any time.
You're actually going to claim that Obama had NO time in two years to address amnesty, especially when passing it would have been far easier than passing ObamaCare (I.e. He would have had RINOs helping him with amnesty)?
You're actually going to claim that Obama was SOOOO busy that he and the Dems couldn't address this issue until AFTER the Dems lost the House?
-
That isn't possible because you've have never destroyed me at any time.
You're actually going to claim that Obama had NO time in two years to address amnesty, especially when passing it would have been far easier than passing ObamaCare (I.e. He would have had RINOs helping him with amnesty)?
You're actually going to claim that Obama was SOOOO busy that he and the Dems couldn't address this issue until AFTER the Dems lost the House?
MCWAY= Ben Carson
Andre= Jesse Jackson Jr.
-
That isn't possible because you've have never destroyed me at any time.
You're actually going to claim that Obama had NO time in two years to address amnesty, especially when passing it would have been far easier than passing ObamaCare (I.e. He would have had RINOs helping him with amnesty)?
You're actually going to claim that Obama was SOOOO busy that he and the Dems couldn't address this issue until AFTER the Dems lost the House?
Dude..I don't have to tell you that politicians work on their campaign promises first when they get in and plus he had to deal with a recession.....but it really doesn't matter what the answer...you are anti-Obama and no matter what he did or does you would have a problem with it....lets leave it at that
-
Dude..I don't have to tell you that politicians work on their campaign promises first when they get in and plus he had to deal with a recession.....but it really doesn't matter what the answer...you are anti-Obama and no matter what he did or does you would have a problem with it....lets leave it at that
Ummmm....one of Obama's campaign promises was "comprehensive immigration reform", aka amnesty. Yet, you're pointing out how Obama was pleading with the Republicans to pass something. The point you keep ducking is that he didn't NEED the GOP to pass it, during his first two years. He could have gone straight down party lines.....JUST AS HE DID WITH OBAMACARE.
But, he didn't. WHY?
-
Ummmm....one of Obama's campaign promises was "comprehensive immigration reform", aka amnesty. Yet, you're pointing out how Obama was pleading with the Republicans to pass something. The point you keep ducking is that he didn't NEED the GOP to pass it, during his first two years. He could have gone straight down party lines.....JUST AS HE DID WITH OBAMACARE.
But, he didn't. WHY?
Congress often cannot focus on two bills at one time..LOL...it just wasn't on the radar at that time...really weird how you are focusing on that..its the Repubs who have been stalling in terms with coming up with a plan..he only had a majority for two years which is not a long time by Washington standards