• 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!

Transcript: Obama's State Of The Union Address 2014

justabubba said:
everyone here who believes that an executive is a follower instead of the leader, please raise your hands (or post it where johnny5 can see)
Click to expand...

I can tell you arent interested in an actual debate. Later.
 
justabubba said:
the XO remark was a line in the sand for congress
work with me, or to the extent i am legally able, i will move things forward myself
seems transparent to me
Click to expand...

To be fair, given numerous instances of the administrations actions being overruled by the court in a unanimous basis, it would be more accurate to say "work with me, or to the extent I believe I am legally able, I will move things forward myself".

As we've seen in past decisions, and potentially in the upcoming decision regarding his "recess" appointment, what the President BELIEVES is legal and what is legal doesn't always jive. What's troubling is an administration ran by a "constitutional professor" (whose experience as such was one thing touted as a reason to not worry about his dreadfully lacking resume) is having routine instances of being overruled unanimously by the SCOTUS.
 
justabubba said:
yes, it does have the power of the purse
but is shutting down government the best way in which to wield that power
Click to expand...

I don't know, you were just slobbering over one branch of power using it's power in an attempt to strong arm in the name of what they think is right....funny you seem to have issues with it when it doesn't fit your political ideology. Shocker.
 
Kushinator said:

The more you know, they less you can embarrass yourself.
Click to expand...

The biggest mistake in a debate:

Being sarcastic when you are WRONG.

The Gender Wage Gap Lie [AKA . Feminist writer in super triple liberal Slate sets babbling idiot from Chicago straight]

9
You know that “women make 77 cents to every man’s dollar” line you’ve heard a hundred times? It’s not true.

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html
 
KLATTU said:
The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.

Gender pay gap: The familiar line that “women make 77 cents to every man’s dollar” simply isn’t accurate.
Click to expand...

Wonderful link. And this actually goes back to my point in another thread about Executive Orders. People enjoy taking a COMPLEX situation/argument/stance and attempting to reduce it to a singular thing while ignoring all the other factors that can be having significant impact.
 
HR-Jan29-Action-Figure_600.jpg


ok thats pretty funny
 
Zyphlin said:
To be fair, given numerous instances of the administrations actions being overruled by the court in a unanimous basis, it would be more accurate to say "work with me, or to the extent I believe I am legally able, I will move things forward myself".

As we've seen in past decisions, and potentially in the upcoming decision regarding his "recess" appointment, what the President BELIEVES is legal and what is legal doesn't always jive. What's troubling is an administration ran by a "constitutional professor" (whose experience as such was one thing touted as a reason to not worry about his dreadfully lacking resume) is having routine instances of being overruled unanimously by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder what he was teaching people.
 
jonny5 said:
We're talking more about the ideology. The purpose of the Presidency is to execute the laws that congress makes and represent the country in foreign affairs. Not to make policy. Hes redefining the balance of power.
Click to expand...

I really wish folks would stop acting as if this is something new for a sitting President. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and GW Bush all used their executive power to streeeeeeeetch their authority somewhat. Some did it within the letter of the law (those who weren't impeached, their executive over-reach wasn't reeled in by the SCOUS or were Congress didn't rewriting specific laws) or they got handed their ass.

Jackson: Indians/land rights - SCOUS
Truman: Industrial seizure - SCOUS
Nixon: civil liberty violations - impeached
Regan: Iran/Contra - Congressional Hearings
Clinton: excessive use of executive privilege - impeached
GW Bush: civil liberty violations - revised law by Congress

I'm sure the SCOUS will rule against Pres. Obama's recess appointments, but that aside if Congress truly believed he was over-stepping his bounds I'm pretty sure the Spkr Boehnor would be doing more than just making idle rhetorical arguments. So, until Congress acts or the SCOUS rules against the alleged unconstitutional actions conducted by President Obama, can we stop acting like the President of the United States cannot use the power of his office to execute policy within his legal authority?
 
Zyphlin said:
To be fair, given numerous instances of the administrations actions being overruled by the court in a unanimous basis, it would be more accurate to say "work with me, or to the extent I believe I am legally able, I will move things forward myself".

As we've seen in past decisions, and potentially in the upcoming decision regarding his "recess" appointment, what the President BELIEVES is legal and what is legal doesn't always jive. What's troubling is an administration ran by a "constitutional professor" (whose experience as such was one thing touted as a reason to not worry about his dreadfully lacking resume) is having routine instances of being overruled unanimously by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

What rulings would those be? Perhaps I've missed it, but I know of no such rulings by the Supreme Court that goes counter to anything President Obama has done to date. Care to elaborate?
 
Objective Voice said:
I really wish folks would stop acting as if this is something new for a sitting President. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and GW Bush all used their executive power to streeeeeeeetch their authority somewhat. Some did it within the letter of the law (those who weren't impeached, their executive over-reach wasn't reeled in by the SCOUS or were Congress didn't rewriting specific laws) or they got handed their ass.

Jackson: Indians/land rights - SCOUS
Truman: Industrial seizure - SCOUS
Nixon: civil liberty violations - impeached
Regan: Iran/Contra - Congressional Hearings
Clinton: excessive use of executive privilege - impeached
GW Bush: civil liberty violations - revised law by Congress

I'm sure the SCOUS will rule against Pres. Obama's recess appointments, but that aside if Congress truly believed he was over-stepping his bounds I'm pretty sure the Spkr Boehnor would be doing more than just making idle rhetorical arguments. So, until Congress acts or the SCOUS rules against the alleged unconstitutional actions conducted by President Obama, can we stop acting like the President of the United States cannot use the power of his office to execute policy within his legal authority?
Click to expand...

Again, we're talking about the IDEOLOGICAL idea of saying that since congress wont give the President what he wants, he'll do it anyway. Was that the argument used by your examples? I dont recall Bush ever saying that.
 
Objective Voice said:
What rulings would those be? Perhaps I've missed it, but I know of no such rulings by the Supreme Court that goes counter to anything President Obama has done to date. Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

Technically they were lower federal courts. Recess appointments for example. SCOTUS is hearing that case right now. Another one was the moritorium on Gulf drilling. A federal court ruled that illegal. Another one is the mass collection of phone records, though that might qualify as more of a govt action than Obama specifically.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
What rulings would those be? Perhaps I've missed it, but I know of no such rulings by the Supreme Court that goes counter to anything President Obama has done to date. Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

Here's a USA Today article going over some of them ((Source) as well as one from the WSJ (SOURCE). A sampling summary...

Horne v. Department of Agriculture was a 5th amendment issue with the Obama Administration seizing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of crop without compensation and claiming the farmers couldn’t even raise the issue with the court without enduring lengthy delays and paying a $483k fine. 9-0 against the administration

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency claimed a couple couldn’t go to court to seek compensation after the EPA blocked construction of their house. Again, 9-0 against the administration

Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States they argued the government isn’t required to compensate people if the government repeatedly and deliberately floods their property. 9-0 against once again.

Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had the administration claiming that a church’s religious protections under the first amendment doesn’t extend to their decisions regarding the hiring and firing of employees, a position even Elena Kagan decried as “amazing”. Again, 9-0.

United States v. Jones had the administration arguing they could put a GPS onto a suspected drug dealer’s car and electronically monitor his movements without a warrant. Again, 9-0

In no way am I suggesting in any of those cases dthat the administration was sitting there going "mwhahaha, let's go against the constitutional boundries set forth before us". But it is pointing out that simply because Obama chooses to do something doesn't necessarily mean he's doing it "within the law", only within what he and his administration THINK is the law.

And as I pointed out in another thread, the argument is hardly singularly on the notion that Executive Orders are unconstiituional (some think that, but it seems a minority) nor simply the amount (ridiculous to look at a complex issue and argument and boil it down to a singular metric), but rather a combination of multiple factors that lead into the complaints regarding Obama's actions and threatened actions.
 
.........................
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
To be fair, given numerous instances of the administrations actions being overruled by the court in a unanimous basis, it would be more accurate to say "work with me, or to the extent I believe I am legally able, I will move things forward myself".

As we've seen in past decisions, and potentially in the upcoming decision regarding his "recess" appointment, what the President BELIEVES is legal and what is legal doesn't always jive. What's troubling is an administration ran by a "constitutional professor" (whose experience as such was one thing touted as a reason to not worry about his dreadfully lacking resume) is having routine instances of being overruled unanimously by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

This would be meaningful if accompanied by a tally of won vs lost vs this administration compared to others.

Without it there is no meaning.
 
jonny5 said:
Again, we're talking about the IDEOLOGICAL idea of saying that since congress wont give the President what he wants, he'll do it anyway. Was that the argument used by your examples? I dont recall Bush ever saying that.
Click to expand...

Bush never faced a Congress on strike.
 
PMZ said:
This would be meaningful if accompanied by a tally of won vs lost vs this administration compared to others.

Without it there is no meaning.
Click to expand...

Depends largely on what I'm claiming.

If I'm caliming this Administration is worse about it than others then you'd have a point.

If I'm simply claiming that stating they "They will do what they can within the law" is incorrect, and that in reality it'ss "They will do what they can within what they believe the law to be" then it doesn't, as what other administrations have done is irrelevant.

I underestand the basic fall back from those who are blindly hyper partisan is to immedietely blame the other guy and go "They did it too!" or to assume people are being hypocriical. That's not hte case here. I'm in no way asserting in this thread that Obama is doing more "wrong" or "unconstitutional" or anything else than any other President...I'm simply asserting that it's incorrect to suggest he will only do things that are within the power of the law. History, documented and unquestionable, shows that's not to be the case. Any additional assumptions you make in terms of my intent, meaning, or purose in stating it are of no concern or validity to me, because your assumptions don't dictate what I think or mean. If you can't combat or counter or offer up an argument regarding the things I've actually SAID so that you have to rely on assumptions and strawmen then that speaks of your lack of an argument rather than a problem in mine.
 
Zyphlin said:
Depends largely on what I'm claiming.

If I'm caliming this Administration is worse about it than others then you'd have a point.

If I'm simply claiming that stating they "They will do what they can within the law" is incorrect, and that in reality it'ss "They will do what they can within what they believe the law to be" then it doesn't, as what other administrations have done is irrelevant.

I underestand the basic fall back from those who are blindly hyper partisan is to immedietely blame the other guy and go "They did it too!" or to assume people are being hypocriical. That's not hte case here. I'm in no way asserting in this thread that Obama is doing more "wrong" or "unconstitutional" or anything else than any other President...I'm simply asserting that it's incorrect to suggest he will only do things that are within the power of the law. History, documented and unquestionable, shows that's not to be the case. Any additional assumptions you make in terms of my intent, meaning, or purose in stating it are of no concern or validity to me, because your assumptions don't dictate what I think or mean. If you can't combat or counter or offer up an argument regarding the things I've actually SAID so that you have to rely on assumptions and strawmen then that speaks of your lack of an argument rather than a problem in mine.
Click to expand...

You are stating whatever you are stating in a hyper-partisan way. If what you meant was that yours was a semantics issue, there were many clearer ways to say it.
 
So PMZ's suggestion actually got me somewhat curious...what WOULD those smattering of cases that the article I linked to suggest related to past instances? So far I've gone through 2000 to 2004 Supreme Court cases looking for instances where the case is suggesting wrong doing on the part of an Executive Branch entity OR based on executive branch actions (as opposed to challenges against a law congress passed, or challenges to more localized cases that are simply appealing the lower courts of the US). So far this is what I've came up with in terms of results from 2000 to 2004:

FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp - 5/4 against administration

United States v. Hubbell - 8/1 against the administration

Kyllo v. United States - 5/4 against the administration

United States v. Mead Corp - 8/1 for the administration

Chickshaw Nation v. United States - 7/2 for the administration

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - 6/3 against the administration

Eldred v. Ashcroft - 7/2 for the administration

United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe - 5/4 against the administration

Sell v. United States - 6/3 against the administration

United States v. Flores-Montano - 9/0 for the administration

Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen - 9/0 for the administration

Rumsefeld v. Badilla - 5/4 for the administration

Rasul v. Bush - 6/3 against the administration

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - 4/2/3 (this was a weird one) against the administration

Leocal v. Ashcroft - 9/0 against the administration

-------

Leocal v. Ashcroft is the only one where I see a unanimous decision against the administration, where they were trying to assert that a DUI constituted a "crime of violence" and thus opened someone up to deportation.

I'll try to continue my search from 2004 to 2008 tomorrow.

I'll also go from 2009 to today and see exactly what instances there are for this current administration as well.

Admittedly, for those that are WANTING to compare (PMZ seemed to want to; my point needed no comparison) it's still lacking a broader scope by looking at Clinton and others before him. I may get to that, but since it wasn't really part of my point and came about more as a random curiosity I don't know if I'll end up doing that.
 
Zyphlin said:
So PMZ's suggestion actually got me somewhat curious...what WOULD those smattering of cases that the article I linked to suggest related to past instances? So far I've gone through 2000 to 2004 Supreme Court cases looking for instances where the case is suggesting wrong doing on the part of an Executive Branch entity OR based on executive branch actions (as opposed to challenges against a law congress passed, or challenges to more localized cases that are simply appealing the lower courts of the US). So far this is what I've came up with in terms of results from 2000 to 2004:

FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp - 5/4 against administration

United States v. Hubbell - 8/1 against the administration

Kyllo v. United States - 5/4 against the administration

United States v. Mead Corp - 8/1 for the administration

Chickshaw Nation v. United States - 7/2 for the administration

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - 6/3 against the administration

Eldred v. Ashcroft - 7/2 for the administration

United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe - 5/4 against the administration

Sell v. United States - 6/3 against the administration

United States v. Flores-Montano - 9/0 for the administration

Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen - 9/0 for the administration

Rumsefeld v. Badilla - 5/4 for the administration

Rasul v. Bush - 6/3 against the administration

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - 4/2/3 (this was a weird one) against the administration

Leocal v. Ashcroft - 9/0 against the administration

-------

Leocal v. Ashcroft is the only one where I see a unanimous decision against the administration, where they were trying to assert that a DUI constituted a "crime of violence" and thus opened someone up to deportation.

I'll try to continue my search from 2004 to 2008 tomorrow.

I'll also go from 2009 to today and see exactly what instances there are for this current administration as well.

Admittedly, for those that are WANTING to compare (PMZ seemed to want to; my point needed no comparison) it's still lacking a broader scope by looking at Clinton and others before him. I may get to that, but since it wasn't really part of my point and came about more as a random curiosity I don't know if I'll end up doing that.
Click to expand...

Good data always enlightens.
 
KLATTU said:
The biggest mistake in a debate:

Being sarcastic when you are WRONG.

The Gender Wage Gap Lie [AKA . Feminist writer in super triple liberal Slate sets babbling idiot from Chicago straight]

9
You know that “women make 77 cents to every man’s dollar” line you’ve heard a hundred times? It’s not true.

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.

Gender pay gap: The familiar line that “women make 77 cents to every man’s dollar” simply isn’t accurate.
Click to expand...

ROFL. The biggest mistake in a debate is not knowing what you are talking about, or being ignorant with respect to the data.

ted_20110216.png


In the future it would be preferable to source actual data, instead of an article that oozes with confirmation bias.

:2wave:
 
Kushinator said:
ROFL. The biggest mistake in a debate is not knowing what you are talking about, or being ignorant with respect to the data.

ted_20110216.png


In the future it would be preferable to source actual data, instead of an article that oozes with confirmation bias.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Where....anywhere...in that chart is there a comparison of men and women doing the same job?????????????????????

The glaring shortcoming in those stats is pointed out in that article by that liberal feminist I linked.
You must have skimmed over that? ;)
 
Zyphlin said:
Wonderful link. And this actually goes back to my point in another thread about Executive Orders. People enjoy taking a COMPLEX situation/argument/stance and attempting to reduce it to a singular thing while ignoring all the other factors that can be having significant impact.
Click to expand...

That link is actually very weak. I can provide provide econometric research (not a weak article) that identifies this concerning trend, if you still are in denial.

Can you do the same?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom