• 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

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're above post containing the case rulings is a little misleading.

While it apparently is true that certain departments of the federal government have been taken to court and lost, it's unfair to suggest that every action a department head [Secretary/Director) took were the direct result of an Executive Order issued by the POTUS.

Never suggested it was. I think you're projecting your assumptions onto what my original statement said. Go back and read MY actual first comment on this...not what others were possibly saying, but MY actually words. I was referencing actions by the administration that were brought to court. I did not suggest "executive orders", but simply an over arching notion of actions undertaken by the Executive Branch or in support of the administrations stated goals and efforts.

As to your "impeachment" comment, I think this is naive thinking and one that I believe you're far to smart to believe is sincere in being presented. First, simply having an action overturned isn't necessarily grounds for impeachment, as it's still highly questionable if such an action is a willful disregard of the constitution or rather they BELIEVE they are acting in accordance with it but once challenged by law find it wasn't. Note, I've not in any way suggested it's a legitimate grounds for impeachment, only that it's a rather reasonably basis to question the assumption one poster put that Obama's actions would only be what could legally be done. Second, you and I both know that impeachment is not a cut and dry situation regarding simply the law and/or constitution, but a highly political action that hinges as much, if not more, on the political winds in the country and the dynamic of power within the legislation. Third, I'm unsure what you mean about the "SC Rule against him", since I'm unaware that the SC has the ability to directly "rule against" a President as the SCOTUS can't act on it's own but only in response to cases brought forward before them.
 
Last edited:
Executive orders exist. Sorry if this is news to you.

Right, that's why President Bush can take us to war without congress approving anything. What a fine country we live in. Those checks and balances are really working out great.

Thanks, founders. :roll:
 
Never suggested it was. I think you're projecting your assumptions onto what my original statement said. Go back and read MY actual first comment on this...not what others were possibly saying, but MY actually words. I was referencing actions by the administration that were brought to court. I did not suggest "executive orders", but simply an over arching notion of actions undertaken by the Executive Branch or in support of the administrations stated goals and efforts.

As to your "impeachment" comment, I think this is naive thinking and one that I believe you're far to smart to believe is sincere in being presented. First, simply having an action overturned isn't necessarily grounds for impeachment, as it's still highly questionable if there was a willful disregard of the constitution of rather they BELIEVED they were acting in accordance with it but once challenged by law found it wasn't. Note, I've not in any way suggested it's a legitimate grounds for impeachment, only that it's a rather reasonably basis to question the assumption one poster put that Obama's actions would only be what could legally be done. Second, you and I both know that impeachment is not a cut and dry situation regarding simply the law and/or constitution, but a highly political action that hinges as much, if not more, on the political winds in the country and the dynamic of power within the legislation. Third, I'm unsure what you mean about the "SC Rule against him", since I'm unaware that the SC has the ability to directly "rule against" a President as the SCOTUS can't act on it's own but only in response to cases brought forward before them.

"if there was a willful disregard of the constitution of rather they BELIEVED they were acting in accordance with it but once challenged by law found it wasn't."

I remember when Americans respected each other, the country, and our government.

Now they respect media. A sad state of affairs. But, entertainers have to make their billions too.
 
Which of Obama's policies caused $7T in debt. Be specific.

Failed Stimulus, lack of leadership, failure to implement any of Bowles/Simpson, Gm/Chrysler takeover, Bailouts, Afghanistan supplementals, people dropping out of the labor forces and not paying FIT. Want me to go on? Does it really matter? You are going to believe what you want in spite of the record.
 
This is interesting: Bush Pushes Agenda Without Congress (from 2007) Bush pushes agenda without Congress - politics | NBC News

From the article:
Outgoing presidents often unleash a flurry of executive orders and regulations in a last-minute attempt to leave their mark on U.S. policy. Frustrated by Congress’ inability or unwillingness to pass the president’s agenda, the administration already is taking steps to do it through executive action....

Bush said it was an example of acting within the boundaries of existing law when Congress failed to act.


sound familiar??

that one is gonna sting
 
Failed Stimulus, lack of leadership, failure to implement any of Bowles/Simpson, Gm/Chrysler takeover, Bailouts, Afghanistan supplementals, people dropping out of the labor forces and not paying FIT. Want me to go on? Does it really matter? You are going to believe what you want in spite of the record.

yes. be specific. exactly what portion of that seven trillion is due to the president's actions/inactions
 
yes. be specific. exactly what portion of that seven trillion is due to the president's actions/inactions

Since Budgets are yearly ever dollar spent in 20010-2013 is Obama's responsibility as is the revenue associated with that economic policy.
 
Since Budgets are yearly ever dollar spent in 20010-2013 is Obama's responsibility as is the revenue associated with that economic policy.

so, then he is also responsible for the severe decline in the annual federal deficit?
good to hear. and you will hear more of it, repeatedly, in response to your own repeated anti-Obama rants
 
so, then he is also responsible for the severe decline in the annual federal deficit?
good to hear. and you will hear more of it, repeatedly, in response to your own repeated anti-Obama rants

Severe decline-680 billion deficit? Interesting that 680 billion added to the debt is still setting records. Guess standards are lower for Obama than other President's. Name for me any Republican President that had a 680 billion deficit and took victory laps over it? Do you realize there was no budget cuts at all, just elimination of the Payroll tax holiday that increased revenue? You think the 3.77 trillion Obama budget is a step towards improving the deficit and reducing the debt?

By the way, sorry that the facts simply get in the way of your pro Obama rants. Guess we can see you are in the 43% that continues to support him
 
Severe decline-680 billion deficit? Interesting that 680 billion added to the debt is still setting records. Guess standards are lower for Obama than other President's. Name for me any Republican President that had a 680 billion deficit and took victory laps over it? Do you realize there was no budget cuts at all, just elimination of the Payroll tax holiday that increased revenue? You think the 3.77 trillion Obama budget is a step towards improving the deficit and reducing the debt?

By the way, sorry that the facts simply get in the way of your pro Obama rants. Guess we can see you are in the 43% that continues to support him

see, this is where your inability to convey things economic undermines your ability to make a valid point
you would want us to suspend belief, and pretend that immediately after inheriting bush's great recession and the sudden loss of millions of jobs, that Obama should somehow be able to operate government with a surplus
no one with a genuine understanding of governance would make such a profoundly obtuse argument

notice how thrifty Obama has actually been ... too frugal for those of us who were hoping for a president who would mimic FDR's approach to the joblessness:
graph obama big spender.jpg
 
see, this is where your inability to convey things economic undermines your ability to make a valid point
you would want us to suspend belief, and pretend that immediately after inheriting bush's great recession and the sudden loss of millions of jobs, that Obama should somehow be able to operate government with a surplus
no one with a genuine understanding of governance would make such a profoundly obtuse argument

notice how thrifty Obama has actually been ... too frugal for those of us who were hoping for a president who would mimic FDR's approach to the joblessness:
View attachment 67161217

Wow, results don't matter to you do they? Interesting how far we have come that a 680 billion dollar deficit is being touted as a success. and actual results of previous debt are ignored.

You people are really desperate but it is failing as the JAR shows. Keep defending the indefensible ignoring results.

Reagan generated 17 million new jobs, doubled GDP, had a 60% growth in FIT revenue, and created a peace dividend all at a cost of 1.7 trillion dollars. Compared to Obama's almost 7 trillion added to the debt and 2 million fewer employed? I can see liberal success means something different to you than in the real world.
 
Failed Stimulus, lack of leadership, failure to implement any of Bowles/Simpson, Gm/Chrysler takeover, Bailouts, Afghanistan supplementals, people dropping out of the labor forces and not paying FIT. Want me to go on? Does it really matter? You are going to believe what you want in spite of the record.

The stimulus was more successful than anybody expected. Almost spectacularly so. Failed leadership in the face of a Republican party on strike in Congress? 40 votes and a Supreme Court challenge against legitimate legislation? Your brain has been replaced by media mush.

We gave your extreme conservatism a legitimate try. It has failed in almost every way possible in government, business, and religion.

Yet you campaign to ignore all of that. Nobody who can still think for themselve is that stupid.
 
The stimulus was more successful than anybody expected. Almost spectacularly so. Failed leadership in the face of a Republican party on strike in Congress? 40 votes and a Supreme Court challenge against legitimate legislation? Your brain has been replaced by media mush.

We gave your extreme conservatism a legitimate try. It has failed in almost every way possible in government, business, and religion.

Yet you campaign to ignore all of that. Nobody who can still think for themselve is that stupid.

You are certainly part of the 43% that continue to support this empty suit. You bought the rhetoric, too bad 21 million Americans disagree with you as they are on unemployment/discouraged/or under employed. Guess that doesn't matter. You bought the rhetoric about the success of the stimulus yet ignores the verifiable results.

Name for me exactly what economic policies Obama proposed in 2009-2011 that he didn't get? You continue to believe what you are told but would be better served to actually check BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury Websites. Obama is making Jimmy Carter look good.
 
Since Budgets are yearly ever dollar spent in 20010-2013 is Obama's responsibility as is the revenue associated with that economic policy.

Not with a Republican House on strike.

Next you'll be saying that wars can be stopped in the middle.

"Oh, excuse us. We didn't mean to blow up your cities. We're sorry.*"

Or

"Moms and Dads, your child died in vain. Just a stupid mistake on our part. "

Every day people like you, here, demonstrate why conservatives cannot govern. For one thing you are unable to learn from your mistakes and another you avoid personal responsibility like the plague.

Peddle your failed dogma somewhere else.
 
The motto of the goose stepping neo-conservative Republican mafia.

Ignore failure, deny success.
 
Not with a Republican House on strike.

Next you'll be saying that wars can be stopped in the middle.

"Oh, excuse us. We didn't mean to blow up your cities. We're sorry.*"

Or

"Moms and Dads, your child died in vain. Just a stupid mistake on our part. "

Every day people like you, here, demonstrate why conservatives cannot govern. For one thing you are unable to learn from your mistakes and another you avoid personal responsibility like the plague.

Peddle your failed dogma somewhere else.


Please take a civics course. My so called dogma is backed by verifiable data that you want to ignore.
 
The motto of the goose stepping neo-conservative Republican mafia.

Ignore failure, deny success.

Right, results don't matter to the American idol voter like you. Civics isn't a strong suit of any liberal
 
Right, results don't matter to the American idol voter like you. Civics isn't a strong suit of any liberal

We focus on progressive, statist government instead. Government that leads positive change for citizens.

You focus on helping the wealthy harvest the middle class, the creators of all wealth. Then you are surprised when the country goes to hell under your governance.
 
How come it's never presented here?

I have thousands of posts and have given the links to the sites. I suggest you learn to verify what you are being told rather than looking foolish.

Go to BEA.gov for GDP growth
Go to BLS.gov for unemployment/under employment/Discouraged workers
Go to the U.S. Treasury for budget line items, revenue, and expenses

You might just realize how foolish liberalism is making you look.
 
We focus on progressive, statist government instead. Government that leads positive change for citizens.

You focus on helping the wealthy harvest the middle class, the creators of all wealth. Then you are surprised when the country goes to hell under your governance.

And exactly what positive change has Obama implemented? Over 250 billion a year in debt service? A dependent class? high unemployment/under employment/discouraged workers? demonizing individual wealth creation? Massive expansion of the Federal Govt. and destruction of state and local governments? The Federal Govt. implementing personal choice social issues?

Tell me how any rich person made you poorer or prevented you from becoming rich?
 
And exactly what positive change has Obama implemented? Over 250 billion a year in debt service? A dependent class? high unemployment/under employment/discouraged workers? demonizing individual wealth creation? Massive expansion of the Federal Govt. and destruction of state and local governments? The Federal Govt. implementing personal choice social issues?

Tell me how any rich person made you poorer or prevented you from becoming rich?

I am rich.

I am old. My one concern are the lives of my grandchildren. I want them to have the same opportunities that I've had.

People who analyze the statistics of social ills have concluded that the main cause is extreme wealth inequity of which the US is the leading example. Experience and data driven reasoning tells me then that extreme wealth inequity is a major threat to my grandchildren's pursuit of happiness.

Some day business will accept responsibility for the insanely lavish compensation they have been giving executives even for mediocre performance. In the meantime it appears to me the only solution is for government to undue what Bush and business did.

That process has already begun with ideas of higher taxes on wealth, combined with rewards for businesses that grow American jobs and don't avoid just taxation through international shenanigans.

Reward what works. A good idea.
 
I have thousands of posts and have given the links to the sites. I suggest you learn to verify what you are being told rather than looking foolish.

Go to BEA.gov for GDP growth
Go to BLS.gov for unemployment/under employment/Discouraged workers
Go to the U.S. Treasury for budget line items, revenue, and expenses

You might just realize how foolish liberalism is making you look.

You need to accept how foolish supporting the worst President in American history makes you look.

Like most Americans I am a progressive statist. Progress has been extremely rewarding to me for 7 decades and I want my grandchildren to say the same when they're my age. What you want is no concern at all to me. What our democracy wants is paramount in my interest.

So you can rant and whine to your heart's content about what you're entitled to and my ears are deaf.

I simply don't care about you.
 
I am rich.

I am old. My one concern are the lives of my grandchildren. I want them to have the same opportunities that I've had.

People who analyze the statistics of social ills have concluded that the main cause is extreme wealth inequity of which the US is the leading example. Experience and data driven reasoning tells me then that extreme wealth inequity is a major threat to my grandchildren's pursuit of happiness.

Some day business will accept responsibility for the insanely lavish compensation they have been giving executives even for mediocre performance. In the meantime it appears to me the only solution is for government to undue what Bush and business did.

That process has already begun with ideas of higher taxes on wealth, combined with rewards for businesses that grow American jobs and don't avoid just taxation through international shenanigans.

Reward what works. A good idea.

I retired 9 years ago and find it amazing that someone your age still has the same feelings as far too many young people today. What you don't seem to understand that in the budget of the United States approximately 250 billion dollars is being paid yearly to debt service on the debt and that goes to foreign countries or people who hold the bonds sold to pay for that debt. That is the 4th largest budget item we have and money that isn't going to the people truly in need.

Results matter for it results that measure performance. If you are as old as you say you were judged based upon performance measured by results. You don't see a disconnect in your attitude now?

Why do you care what business pays its workers, its executives, and pays in taxes? How does that affect you or your grandkids? Your attitude makes no sense especially when we have a 3.6 trillion dollar federal govt. that you want to ignore at least with Obama in the WH.

What you and far too many are overlooking is the greed of bureaucrats and how that greed is destroying individual wealth opportunities and your freedoms. I have always said it is easier to think with your heart instead of your brain and that is what you are doing here.

This country was built on the very principles Obama is destroying, incentive and individual wealth creation. It was build on equal opportunity not equal outcome. Obama is a community agitator who never ran anything in his life and we are paying the price for that ignorance and arrogance now. The reward should be the ability to make legally as much as one can or chooses to make.

If you became rich as you claim you did most of it on your own. Why would you allow a President to destroy the very opportunities you had then?
 
Back
Top Bottom