Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 71

Thread: White House: Obama to sign order banning anti-gay discrimination

  1. #61
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: White House: Obama to sign order banning anti-gay discrimination

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    1.)Nor do you. But that's par for the course.
    2.) The fact is the POTUS was already told no on this matter by the only body granted the power to make legislation and now he's legislating through EO.
    3.)I'd say that I just can't wait to hear you squeal when some other POTUS legislates like this in a way that goes against your "facts", but I don't really want that to happen either.
    1.) nobody educated and honest believes this lie
    2.) nope not true sorry. I deal in facts and reality not your false opinions
    3.) wont happen since im honest and objective. This has NOTHING to do with "OBAMA" lmao thats where your biased shows. This has to do with the EO and how this one is a great thing.

    let me know when you can support your failed claim until then your posts have nothing
    facts win again
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #62
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: White House: Obama to sign order banning anti-gay discrimination

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    What if you're wrong?
    why are you dodging the question?

    has nothing to do with "me" lol this is about facts so AGAIN i ask you, what NEW precedence does this set, please try to answer this time and realize it its legal and many other presidents have done the same there is no new "precedence" set

    I bet the question is dodged again
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #63
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: White House: Obama to sign order banning anti-gay discrimination

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Those politicians didn't promise "change", did they? No, they didn't.

    But we all know who did, don't we?
    Ahh, so hypocrisy is ok as long as you didn't use "change" as a catchphrase. (because Obama is the first president ever to say he was going to be different than the last guy. as opposed to "every time the incumbent or outgoing president is from the other party")
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,076

    Re: White House: Obama to sign order banning anti-gay discrimination

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    You know, while I support SSM and support not discriminating against gays, Obama has set a horrible precidence from legislating by executive order.

    I really fear the next GOP president that comes in. The precidence set is that it is ok to legislate nationally through executive order when something can't get approved through congress. While the number of Obama's executive orders have been less than past presidents, the impact of Obama's executive orders have been massive.

    People supporting this IMO are using the excuse of "The ends justify the means", however, the stage is set for a GOP president to do the same thing.
    Only there is precedent for this:

    Executive Order 11478 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or age, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the Federal Government.
    Executive Order 8802 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by FDR
    There is evidence available that needed workers have been barred from industries engaged in defense production solely because of considerations of race, creed, color or national origin, to the detriment of workers' morale and of national unity.
    Executive Order 9981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Truman
    It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation
    "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
    Presidents have ensure that the government doesn't discriminate and neither do those who get money from the government for.... well.... over a century now. So yes, there is precedent for this on all account. There are executive orders used previously for the same reasons and and there are even situations where this has been done before. None have been deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #65
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: White House: Obama to sign order banning anti-gay discrimination

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    You know, while I support SSM and support not discriminating against gays, Obama has set a horrible precidence from legislating by executive order.

    I really fear the next GOP president that comes in. The precidence set is that it is ok to legislate nationally through executive order when something can't get approved through congress. While the number of Obama's executive orders have been less than past presidents, the impact of Obama's executive orders have been massive.

    People supporting this IMO are using the excuse of "The ends justify the means", however, the stage is set for a GOP president to do the same thing.
    Somebody gets it - I've been trying to point this out for a while.

    I'm going to laugh my butt off at the explosions of anger and disbelief when President Rubio (or whomever) instructs the IRS to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" with regards to the tax code in order to push tax reform without Congress, and simply deems radical changes to healthcare, as this President is wont to do to his own law. Perhaps we should then set the IRS on unions, and declare that the Justice Department shall now consider closed-shops to be a violation of anti-monopoly laws...

    Lots of fun you can have, once the precedent for an ever-expanding imperial presidency is put in place by the other team.

    Rubio's gonna have a phone, and he's gonna have a pen.

  6. #66
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: White House: Obama to sign order banning anti-gay discrimination

    Its funny all the strawmen in this thread

    the thread is about equal rights winning and gaining ground.

    some how "obama sucks", tyranny, EOs that have nothing to do with this one are things people are trying(and failing) to relate to this lol
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #67
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: White House: Obama to sign order banning anti-gay discrimination

    So how about congress cut the crap and do this themselves?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #68
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,844

    Re: White House: Obama to sign order banning anti-gay discrimination

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    You know, while I support SSM and support not discriminating against gays, Obama has set a horrible precidence from legislating by executive order.

    I really fear the next GOP president that comes in. The precidence set is that it is ok to legislate nationally through executive order when something can't get approved through congress. While the number of Obama's executive orders have been less than past presidents, the impact of Obama's executive orders have been massive.

    People supporting this IMO are using the excuse of "The ends justify the means", however, the stage is set for a GOP president to do the same thing.
    Were none of you conservatives paying attention at all during the past 30 years or so? The expansion of the power of the POTUS has been going on for quite some time, and it's not just with EOs, but with broad claims of nearly unchecked power as "Commander in Chief." Particularly after 9/11 Yoo, with Cheney's full support (he has been a believer in a 'robust' WH since Reagan, where he argued Reagan was authorized to ignore Congress with regard to dealing with the Contras) aggressively expanded the legal arguments for the Unitary Executive.

    I'm OK with people arguing liberals are being hypocrites when they cheer an an Obama EO they support , but screamed like stuck pigs when W. used a string of them to ignore Congress, but no one can legitimately claim that Obama's recent acts have set a new precedent. They just have not. Nothing he's done would have been even slightly inconsistent with the interpretation outlined by Yoo and others during the post 9/11 era or inconsistent with Cheney's long time view of the powers of the POTUS, or inconsistent with acts taken from Reagan, through Clinton, then W. and now Obama. At most what anyone can legitimately claim is each Pres. in the post Watergate era (where powers of the POTUS were clipped) has taken a series of steps to reclaim and seize greater powers in the Executive branch and POTUS.

  9. #69
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: White House: Obama to sign order banning anti-gay discrimination

    He's absolutely free to do this to my understanding as it's just dealing with those companies doing business with the government.

    That said, he's an absolute hypocrite and continues to daily demonstrate that his entire 2008 campaign was complete and utter hogwash and that so many of those casual voters that bought into his presentation as being something other than a typical politician were hoodwinked fools.

  10. #70
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,844

    Re: White House: Obama to sign order banning anti-gay discrimination

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Somebody gets it - I've been trying to point this out for a while.

    I'm going to laugh my butt off at the explosions of anger and disbelief when President Rubio (or whomever) instructs the IRS to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" with regards to the tax code in order to push tax reform without Congress, and simply deems radical changes to healthcare, as this President is wont to do to his own law. Perhaps we should then set the IRS on unions, and declare that the Justice Department shall now consider closed-shops to be a violation of anti-monopoly laws...

    Lots of fun you can have, once the precedent for an ever-expanding imperial presidency is put in place by the other team.

    Rubio's gonna have a phone, and he's gonna have a pen.
    That's right. And if you'd been reading left wing writers during Bush, they made the EXACT argument you're making above only it was generally "Wait till Hillary gets in power and starts claiming the unchecked Unitary Executive and Commander in Chief powers..." They were wrong about the "Hillary" part, but right about the rest.

    Let's face it - we all like it when 'our' guy is a strong leader and takes bold acts to advance an agenda we support, and if we oppose that agenda, we're going to whine and complain about it. But if anyone really cares about the issue, about the powers of the WH, Congress is going to have to come together, on a bipartisan basis, and reclaim their authority that's been slowly stripped by each POTUS since at least Reagan, Clinton and Obama included.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •