• 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!

Tom Coburn: Obama 'Getting Perilously Close' To Standard For Impeachment

Jack Hays said:
No, there have not, because the federal government lacks the authority to proceed without Congressional approval.
Click to expand...

So, follow me, states requests waivers. Obama considers helping them out. The question is asked, congress says no, and Obama doesn't grant them. Wow! Now that's some lawless ****!

:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Jack Hays said:
I would not agree that it addresses the questions. I'm on my iPad now instead of laptop, so I can't link right now.:peace
Click to expand...

That's fine. When you can works. But the other response stands either way.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, follow me, states requests waivers. Obama considers helping them out. The question is asked, congress says no, and Obama doesn't grant them. Wow! Now that's some lawless ****!

:lamo:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

BHO attempts illegal exercise of executive authority, GAO calls the foul and BHO backs down, for the moment.:peace
BHO backs down because he knows Congress will never accept his gutting of welfare reform.
 
Jack Hays said:
BHO attempts illegal exercise of executive authority, GAO calls the foul and BHO backs down, for the moment.:peace
Click to expand...

That seems like partisan hyperbole. As the states are behind the effort, it really makes no logical sense for anyone to read it as you do. So I think this s still correct:

So, follow me, states requests waivers. Obama considers helping them out. The question is asked, congress says no, and Obama doesn't grant them. Wow! Now that's some lawless ****!
:lamo:lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
That seems like partisan hyperbole. As the states are behind the effort, it really makes no logical sense for anyone to read it as you do. So I think this s still correct:

So, follow me, states requests waivers. Obama considers helping them out. The question is asked, congress says no, and Obama doesn't grant them. Wow! Now that's some lawless ****!
:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

The states are not arbiters of federal authority. The Confederacy lost.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
I have no party. The claims I make are in defense of the Constitution and welfare reform.
Click to expand...

You may tell yourself that, but you're joining in on a huge hyperbolic misrepresentation.
 
Jack Hays said:
The "vast right wing conspiracy?" Haven't heard that line for a while.:peace
Click to expand...

Again nit what I said. I said hyperbole. I said misrepresentation. Not conspiracy. Just cheap exaggeration.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again nit what I said. I said hyperbole. I said misrepresentation. Not conspiracy. Just cheap exaggeration.
Click to expand...

Ah. But you DID suggest that I don't understand why I believe what I believe. Would that be a fair description?
 
Jack Hays said:
Ah. But you DID suggest that I don't understand why I believe what I believe. Would that be a fair description?
Click to expand...

I suggested it is hyperbolic, exaggerated, and a misrepresentation. Whether you understand that or not I can't say. ;)
 
Jack Hays said:
Ah. Well I think it's objective and data-driven.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not. The data includes the facts of how it came about, the problem that was being addressed, the response to the questioning. Your conclusions are not in sync with the data.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry you wasted so much time on a lost cause. Game, set, match.

The Truth About Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Welfare Reform ...

US News & World Report | News & Rankings | Best Colleges, Best Hospitals, and more › Opinion › Peter Roff‎
Sep 24, 2012 - President Obama does not have the authority to remove the work requirement from welfare.

The Government Accountability Office, an independent federal agency, has weighed in on the side of the GOP—at least as far as Obama's authority to waive the tough work requirements that are the cornerstone of the new law is concerned.
In early September the agency issued a report that stated the waivers the administration had announced could not be accomplished unilaterally and needed, instead, to be submitted to Congress for approval.:peace
Click to expand...
First of all, President Obama did not remove the work requirement. The dishonesty from the anti-Obama crowd is simply amazing.

Second of all, if you knew of this report already, why did you continue to ask the question? Seems incredibly dishonest to me.

Third of all, despite what the GAO said, it doesn't change the fact the LAW ITSELF granted the power to the Secretary of the HHS to work with states to improve the stated goals. Now we could either say the law was poorly written OR you can say the waivers can still proceed when going through proper channels, but no matter how you want to look at it, the Secretary of Health and Human services DOES have that power.

In other words, your dishonesty still doesn't change the fact nothing was done illegally. You lose and lose badly.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, it's not. The data includes the facts of how it came about, the problem that was being addressed, the response to the questioning. Your conclusions are not in sync with the data.
Click to expand...


Lawlessness in the Executive

BY JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
As was quite clear at the time, the biggest mistake that Mitt Romney’s campaign made in 2012 was not aggressively attacking Obamacare. What may well have been its second-biggest mistake, however, was less noticed: the striking silence in the face of President Obama’s announcement ... Obama has also ignored the mid-1990s welfare-reform law, allowing states to strip the “work” out of workfare . . . :mrgreen:
 
Slyfox696 said:
First of all, President Obama did not remove the work requirement. The dishonesty from the anti-Obama crowd is simply amazing.

Second of all, if you knew of this report already, why did you continue to ask the question? Seems incredibly dishonest to me.

Third of all, despite what the GAO said, it doesn't change the fact the LAW ITSELF granted the power to the Secretary of the HHS to work with states to improve the stated goals. Now we could either say the law was poorly written OR you can say the waivers can still proceed when going through proper channels, but no matter how you want to look at it, the Secretary of Health and Human services DOES have that power.

In other words, your dishonesty still doesn't change the fact nothing was done illegally. You lose and lose badly.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say . . . :lamo


Lawlessness in the Executive

BY JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
As was quite clear at the time, the biggest mistake that Mitt Romney’s campaign made in 2012 was not aggressively attacking Obamacare. What may well have been its second-biggest mistake, however, was less noticed: the striking silence in the face of President Obama’s announcement ... Obama has also ignored the mid-1990s welfare-reform law, allowing states to strip the “work” out of workfare . . . :mrgreen:
 
Jack Hays said:

Lawlessness in the Executive

BY JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
As was quite clear at the time, the biggest mistake that Mitt Romney’s campaign made in 2012 was not aggressively attacking Obamacare. What may well have been its second-biggest mistake, however, was less noticed: the striking silence in the face of President Obama’s announcement ... Obama has also ignored the mid-1990s welfare-reform law, allowing states to strip the “work” out of workfare . . . :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I know a lot think hyperbolic exaggeration to the nth degree works, but, it really just makes a candidate look sad and desperate. The only people it would have worked for already voted for him.
 
j-mac said:
As a non lawyer, I agree with Sen. Coburn...I think that Obama is doing things that long ago should have been considered for action. So my question is, why do you think that he can get away with some of the clear violations he has, when if we were talking of a republican violating the constitution in the same way the calls for impeachment would be loud and steady....
Click to expand...

They were, and nothing happened then either. It's called partisans! This is what's killing America today. People's party is more important than the law, the constitution and what's good for America.
 
Boo Radley said:
I know a lot think hyperbolic exaggeration to the nth degree works, but, it really just makes a candidate look sad and desperate. The only people it would have worked for already voted for him.
Click to expand...
Which, tragically, is why we have the sad and desperate moron in office now that we do.
 
Boo Radley said:
I know a lot think hyperbolic exaggeration to the nth degree works, but, it really just makes a candidate look sad and desperate. The only people it would have worked for already voted for him.
Click to expand...

Hyperbolic? Nah. Reasonable and well reasoned.:peace
 
Another thread dedicated to the well-being of Putin by the enemy within.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom