• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shift on executive power lets Obama bypass rivals

No, you're right. You haven't said that they shouldn't hear it, only that if they rule against what you think should be the proper ruling then you will demonize the court, and bitch about how it was a judicial fiat.


j-mac

Kind of like republicans do every time the court rules against what they think is proper. You know, judicial activism. :coffeepap
 
So, now we come to the meat of your issue. It's not that you have a problem with Obama passing agenda through executive order, you just have a problem with Obama passing agendas through executive orders YOU DON'T LIKE. You approved of Bush's agendas, but not Obama's. That's fair, but don't say you are against passing agenda through executive order when you actually supported Bush doing it.

Thanks for clearing that up.


I would say, that you have outed yourself here. Look, the problems we have now are a result of Presidents in the past looking for ways to increase their power, and circumventing how this country is supposed to work on BOTH sides of the isle. But, to compare a President that did things through exec order to make sure that opposition to a war didn't actively lose that war for political reasons, as opposed to a President that wants to grab power to fundamentally change this country into a 'social justice' view that believes that the constitution is only a piece of paper that they got wrong, is disingenuous, and the height of hypocrisy, when he campaigned for this office on a platform of open and transparent governance. Obama is a liar, and a socialist killer of true freedom in this country.

And, he is now having problems with his own constituency for the upcoming election....

Obama carried voters between the ages of 18-29 by a margin of about 2-to-1 in 2008, but many recent college graduates have faced high levels of unemployment. That raises concerns for the president about whether they will vote and volunteer for him in such large numbers again.

Read more: Obama takes on student loan costs, eyes young voters | Fox News

But there are warning signs on the horizon for Mr. Obama. It is not just a sagging economy that may actually be on the way down, not up. Battleground state voters are leaving the Democratic Party. According to National Journal, “Over 825,000 registered Democrats in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina and Pennsylvania have departed the party rolls since President Obama’s election in 2008.”

USA Today reports that Republicans have become resurgent in key swing states too. “Since the heady days of 2008, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States Poll finds the number of voters who identify themselves as Democratic or Democratic-leaning in these key states has eroded, down by 4 percentage points, while the ranks of Republicans have climbed by 5 points.” Republican voters are also paying more attention and are more engaged. In key swing states, Obama trails both Romney and Gingrich.

Bad News for Barack Obama’s Re-Election | RedState


You libs are in big electoral trouble, that is why Obama can't run anything but a vitriolic, attack laced campaign....Y'all got nothing.


j-mac
 
When Congress starts approving his appointees that have been waiting since 2009 then maybe you have a right to complain.

He has the right to complain, no matter what Congress does.

The GOP has been obstructing Obama in everything so no wonder he is pissed. Obama is the president in US history who has had least appointments approved by Congress, and it is all down to GOP obstructionism. So spare me the crocodile tears please...

Again, we go back to the seperation of powers thing. There's a legitimate reason it exists. If Obama didn't put up so many clowns for these appointments, the Republicans wouldn't have to block those appointments.

It's not Congress' job to spoon feed the president. That's the way our system works.
 
I don't know about that. As someone who voted for Dole, I think Bush lost it when he invaded Iraq. At that point, he earned a lot of the distain people held for him.

Bush went to Congress for permission to invade Iraq. The vote was overwhelming in favor. That IMO makes it Congress, or America's, war.
The vote by Congress regarding interfering in Libya - Republican - 0 - Democrat - 0 - President 1
 
He has the right to complain, no matter what Congress does.



Again, we go back to the seperation of powers thing. There's a legitimate reason it exists. If Obama didn't put up so many clowns for these appointments, the Republicans wouldn't have to block those appointments.

It's not Congress' job to spoon feed the president. That's the way our system works.

The only problem with that theory is that Congress has blocked many many appointees for reasons that have nothing to do with the appointees.
 
Bush went to Congress for permission to invade Iraq. The vote was overwhelming in favor. That IMO makes it Congress, or America's, war.
The vote by Congress regarding interfering in Libya - Republican - 0 - Democrat - 0 - President 1

Actually, that is incorrect. I realize it is a small point, and still speaks poorly of congress, but all they voted for was to let Bush decide. They did not vote to go to war.
 
Your son is about to be hit by a truck, but to get to him you must run across a lawn posted "No Trespassing".

Do you trespass and save him.

~OR~

Do you let him die?

Oh wow! Giving The Messiah is way is now life, or death? :rofl
 
When President Bush was passing agenda items, conservatives didn't raise a rant. Now that Obama is doing it, they are screaming like stuck pigs that it is beyond his authority. Consitution is key, we are seeing that conservatives don't really care unless there is a D in front of the name.

Works both ways J. Your faux outrage is noted, but amazing, did a search and couldn't find anything on you complaining about Bush and his signing agenda through executive order.

Bush circumvented the system?
 
I don't know about that. As someone who voted for Dole, I think Bush lost it when he invaded Iraq. At that point, he earned a lot of the distain people held for him.

The disdain existed prior to that. It's why those same people cast all the blame for 9/11 onto him.
 
The only problem with that theory is that Congress has blocked many many appointees for reasons that have nothing to do with the appointees.

I'm sure you were just as furious when the Democrats blocked Bush's appointees, as well. Yes?

I just know you were fit to be tide, when a group of Democrat congress critters wanted to launch an investigation to prove that Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and for war crimes.

Am I right?

You can cry about Republican, "obstructionism", all you want, but it's nothing close to what the Democrats did during the Bush administration.
 
The disdain existed prior to that. It's why those same people cast all the blame for 9/11 onto him.

You can always find some, but overall, no. I myself saw him no worse than anyone I disagreed with. I even argued the country would survive him just fine. I was wrong. He lost his mind and did a lot of damage. And he did so with the blessings of a lot of partisans.
 
Actually, that is incorrect. I realize it is a small point, and still speaks poorly of congress, but all they voted for was to let Bush decide. They did not vote to go to war.

You are correct. Bush went to Congress for permission to invade Iraq. Congress authorized the invasion, war was never declared. The large point, Barry did not.
 
You are correct. Bush went to Congress for permission to invade Iraq. Congress authorized the invasion, war was never declared. The large point, Barry did not.

Unlike Bush, Obama worked within the UN, an organization we have signed agreements with that went through congress. While I also question Obama's actions, he did not move into another country, nation build and lock us into a long term conflict. I know how hard some try to make very different things equal, but the fact is they are not. They are different.
 
You can always find some, but overall, no. I myself saw him no worse than anyone I disagreed with. I even argued the country would survive him just fine. I was wrong. He lost his mind and did a lot of damage. And he did so with the blessings of a lot of partisans.

OMG! Are you fixing to blame Bush for the recession? That's as rediculous as saying that 9/11 was an inside job.
 
Unlike Bush, Obama worked within the UN, an organization we have signed agreements with that went through congress. While I also question Obama's actions, he did not move into another country, nation build and lock us into a long term conflict. I know how hard some try to make very different things equal, but the fact is they are not. They are different.

Bush worked within the UN, as well.
 
OMG! Are you fixing to blame Bush for the recession? That's as rediculous as saying that 9/11 was an inside job.

Are you for real? The recession hit seven years into Bush's presidency and you want to give him a complete pass? :lol:
 
I would say, that you have outed yourself here. Look, the problems we have now are a result of Presidents in the past looking for ways to increase their power, and circumventing how this country is supposed to work on BOTH sides of the isle. But, to compare a President that did things through exec order to make sure that opposition to a war didn't actively lose that war for political reasons, as opposed to a President that wants to grab power to fundamentally change this country into a 'social justice' view that believes that the constitution is only a piece of paper that they got wrong, is disingenuous, and the height of hypocrisy, when he campaigned for this office on a platform of open and transparent governance. Obama is a liar, and a socialist killer of true freedom in this country.

Again, you are the only one that has outed himself here. YOU support passing agendas through executive orders if YOU support the agenda. There are many that didn't support the Iraq war and look at it negatively that Bush had done this.

Secondly, I'm not voting for Obama, so I have stood against this whereas you have just excused it with another president doing it.

As I've offered many times, put your money where your mouth is if you think Romney is going to win. I've offered and the Cons all run away.
 
Are you for real? The recession hit seven years into Bush's presidency and you want to give him a complete pass? :lol:

Which one of Bush's policies caused the recession?

I mean, we're still in a recession 3 years into Obama's only term and you don't place any responsibility at his door step. Nothing new there, though...huh?
 
OMG! Are you fixing to blame Bush for the recession? That's as rediculous as saying that 9/11 was an inside job.

In fact, that was not what I was doing. But in fact he did not help. I don't believe presidents control the economy, but fighting two wars, not asking that they be paid for, telling people we can spend like drunken sailors and that we can cut taxes.

However, I was speaking to our credibility, to embolding terrorists, helping with their recruitment, destablizing the region, breaking the rule of law, and grabbing power.
 
No, Bush the jr. did not. Coalition of the willing is by definition outside the UN.

He went to the UN. It's not his fault they chickened out. Remember Colin Powells speech to the general assembly?

I guess Saddam had too many friends in the UN.
 
I guess Saddam had too many friends in the UN.

Or there was doubt that Saddam had STOCKPILES of WMDs (Which was the key selling point for the invasion). Gee, were those stockpiles ever found? Nope
 
In fact, that was not what I was doing. But in fact he did not help. I don't believe presidents control the economy, but fighting two wars, not asking that they be paid for, telling people we can spend like drunken sailors and that we can cut taxes.

Sounds a lot like you're blaiming him for the recession, to me.

However, I was speaking to our credibility, to embolding terrorists, helping with their recruitment, destablizing the region, breaking the rule of law, and grabbing power.

What, the terrorists hated us more? Those arguments were lame 10 years ago. Can't believe you're still using them.

Are you trying to claim that the terrorists like us now, since The One got elected?
 
Or there was doubt that Saddam had STOCKPILES of WMDs (Which was the key selling point for the invasion). Gee, were those stockpiles ever found? Nope

I don't recall anyone complaining about Saddam being removed from power, though.

The members of the UN didn't have a problem with the invasion; they just didn't want to get their hands dirty.
 
Back
Top Bottom