How about let's cut through the BS and establish the fact that Obama himself insisted no
less than a dozen times that he didn't have the authority to do what he ended up doing, or
trying to do. It's on tape! He's the leader of the party you support. Why is that not
good enough?You people are amazing.
He said he didn't have the authority to offer amnesty.
He didn't offer amnesty.
How about let's cut through the BS and establish the fact that Obama himself insisted no
less than a dozen times that he didn't have the authority to do what he ended up doing, or
trying to do. It's on tape! He's the leader of the party you support. Why is that not
good enough?You people are amazing.
He said he didn't have the authority to offer amnesty.
He didn't offer amnesty.
-_______________________________________________________________________
Giving the illegal aliens identity cards, SSNs and driver's licenses, free education, gov't housing, food stamps, free health care, EITC retro for 3 years, making them eligible to work creates a new class of people and is defacto thie own class Not deporting illegal aliens is In reality amnesty.
Sticking the States and the tax-payers with the bill for something they don't support is just wrong.
The President cannot make law or change it as he pleases, he is sworn to uphold the law.
I used the term in an historical context. Again I didn't mean to offend. Like I said, I didn't realize Muleman was black.
In a historical sense I don't see anything racist about my use of the term. I've not experienced the life Muleman has. I was insensitive, I didn't realize the African American Community considered the term, "40 acres and a Mule" racist.
I found this about the history of the term:
The Truth Behind ’40 Acres and a Mule’
by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. | Originally posted on The Root
We’ve all heard the story of the “40 acres and a mule” promise to former slaves. It’s a staple of black history lessons, and it’s the name of Spike Lee’s film company. The promise was the first systematic attempt to provide a form of reparations to newly freed slaves, and it was astonishingly radical for its time, proto-socialist in its implications. In fact, such a policy would be radical in any country today: the federal government’s massive confiscation of private property — some 400,000 acres — formerly owned by Confederate land owners, and its methodical redistribution to former black slaves. What most of us haven’t heard is that the idea really was generated by black leaders themselves.It is difficult to stress adequately how revolutionary this idea was: As the historian Eric Foner puts it in his book, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, “Here in coastal South Carolina and Georgia, the prospect beckoned of a transformation of Southern society more radical even than the end of slavery.” Try to imagine how profoundly different the history of race relations in the United States would have been had this policy been implemented and enforced; had the former slaves actually had access to the ownership of land, of property; if they had had a chance to be self-sufficient economically, to build, accrue and pass on wealth. After all, one of the principal promises of America was the possibility of average people being able to own land, and all that such ownership entailed. As we know all too well, this promise was not to be realized for the overwhelming majority of the nation’s former slaves, who numbered about 3.9 million.
What Exactly Was Promised?
General William Tecumseh Sherman in May 1865. Portrait by Mathew Brady.
General William Tecumseh Sherman in May 1865. Portrait by Mathew Brady.We have been taught in school that the source of the policy of “40 acres and a mule” was Union General William T. Sherman’s Special Field Order No. 15, issued on Jan. 16, 1865. (That account is half-right: Sherman prescribed the 40 acres in that Order, but not the mule. The mule would come later.) But what many accounts leave out is that this idea for massive land redistribution actually was the result of a discussion that Sherman and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton held four days before Sherman issued the Order, with 20 leaders of the black community in Savannah, Ga., where Sherman was headquartered following his famous March to the Sea. The meeting was unprecedented in American history.
Today, we commonly use the phrase “40 acres and a mule,” but few of us have read the Order itself. Three of its parts are relevant here. Section one bears repeating in full: “The islands from Charleston, south, the abandoned rice fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering the St. Johns river, Florida, are reserved and set apart for the settlement of the negroes [sic] now made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States.”
Section two specifies that these new communities, moreover, would be governed entirely by black people themselves: ” … on the islands, and in the settlements hereafter to be established, no white person whatever, unless military officers and soldiers detailed for duty, will be permitted to reside; and the sole and exclusive management of affairs will be left to the freed people themselves … By the laws of war, and orders of the President of the United States, the negro [sic] is free and must be dealt with as such.”
Finally, section three specifies the allocation of land: ” … each family shall have a plot of not more than (40) acres of tillable ground, and when it borders on some water channel, with not more than 800 feet water front, in the possession of which land the military authorities will afford them protection, until such time as they can protect themselves, or until Congress shall regulate their title.”
With this Order, 400,000 acres of land — “a strip of coastline stretching from Charleston, South Carolina, to the St. John’s River in Florida, including Georgia’s Sea Islands and the mainland thirty miles in from the coast,” as Barton Myers reports — would be redistributed to the newly freed slaves. The extent of this Order and its larger implications are mind-boggling, actually.
Who Came Up With the Idea?
Here’s how this radical proposal — which must have completely blown the minds of the rebel Confederates — actually came about. The abolitionists Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens and other Radical Republicans had been actively advocating land redistribution “to break the back of Southern slaveholders’ power,” as Myers observed. But Sherman’s plan only took shape after the meeting that he and Stanton held with those black ministers, at 8:00 p.m., Jan. 12, on the second floor of Charles Green’s mansion on Savannah’s Macon Street. In its broadest strokes, “40 acres and a mule” was their idea.
Stanton, aware of the great historical significance of the meeting, presented Henry Ward Beecher (Harriet Beecher Stowe’s famous brother) a verbatim transcript of the discussion, which Beecher read to his congregation at New York’s Plymouth Church and which the New York Daily Tribune printed in full in its Feb. 13, 1865, edition. Stanton told Beecher that “for the first time in the history of this nation, the representatives of the government had gone to these poor debased people to ask them what they wanted for themselves.” Stanton had suggested to Sherman that they gather “the leaders of the local Negro community” and ask them something no one else had apparently thought to ask: “What do you want for your own people” following the war? And what they wanted astonishes us even today.
Who were these 20 thoughtful leaders who exhibited such foresight? They were all ministers, mostly Baptist and Methodist. Most curious of all to me is that 11 of the 20 had been born free in slave states, of which 10 had lived as free men in the Confederacy during the course of the Civil War. (The other one, a man named James Lynch, was born free in Maryland, a slave state, and had only moved to the South two years before.) The other nine ministers had been slaves in the South who became “contraband,” and hence free, only because of the Emancipation Proclamation, when Union forces liberated them.
Their chosen leader and spokesman was a Baptist minister named Garrison Frazier, aged 67, who had been born in Granville, N.C., and was a slave until 1857, “when he purchased freedom for himself and wife for $1000 in gold and silver,” as the New York Daily Tribune reported. Rev. Frazier had been “in the ministry for thirty-five years,” and it was he who bore the responsibility of answering the 12 questions that Sherman and Stanton put to the group. The stakes for the future of the Negro people were high.
And Frazier and his brothers did not disappoint. What did they tell Sherman and Stanton that the Negro most wanted? Land! “The way we can best take care of ourselves,” Rev. Frazier began his answer to the crucial third question, “is to have land, and turn it and till it by our own labor … and we can soon maintain ourselves and have something to spare … We want to be placed on land until we are able to buy it and make it our own.” And when asked next where the freed slaves “would rather live — whether scattered among the whites or in colonies by themselves,” without missing a beat, Brother Frazier (as the transcript calls him) replied that “I would prefer to live by ourselves, for there is a prejudice against us in the South that will take years to get over … ” When polled individually around the table, all but one — James Lynch, 26, the man who had moved south from Baltimore — said that they agreed with Frazier. Four days later, Sherman issued Special Field Order No. 15, after President Lincoln approved it.
What Became of the Land That Was Promised?
The response to the Order was immediate. When the transcript of the meeting was reprinted in the black publication Christian Recorder, an editorial note intoned that “From this it will be seen that the colored people down South are not so dumb as many suppose them to be,” reflecting North-South, slave-free black class tensions that continued well into the modern civil rights movement. The effect throughout the South was electric: As Eric Foner explains, “the freedmen hastened to take advantage of the Order.” Baptist minister Ulysses L. Houston, one of the group that had met with Sherman, led 1,000 blacks to Skidaway Island, Ga., where they established a self-governing community with Houston as the “black governor.” And by June, “40,000 freedmen had been settled on 400,000 acres of ‘Sherman Land.’ ” By the way, Sherman later ordered that the army could lend the new settlers mules; hence the phrase, “40 acres and a mule.”
And what happened to this astonishingly visionary program, which would have fundamentally altered the course of American race relations? Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor and a sympathizer with the South, overturned the Order in the fall of 1865, and, as Barton Myers sadly concludes, “returned the land along the South Carolina, Georgia and Florida coasts to the planters who had originally owned it” — to the very people who had declared war on the United States of America.
Fifty of the 100 Amazing Facts will be published on The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross website. Read all 100 Facts on The Root.
How about let's cut through the BS and establish the fact that Obama himself insisted no
less than a dozen times that he didn't have the authority to do what he ended up doing, or
trying to do. It's on tape! He's the leader of the party you support. Why is that not
good enough?You people are amazing.
He said he didn't have the authority to offer amnesty.
He didn't offer amnesty.-_______________________________________________________________________
Giving the illegal aliens identity cards, SSNs and driver's licenses, free education, gov't housing, food stamps, free health care, EITC retro for 3 years, making them eligible to work creates a new class of people and is defacto thie own class Not deporting illegal aliens is In reality amnesty.
Sticking the States and the tax-payers with the bill for something they don't support is just wrong.
The President cannot make law or change it as he pleases, he is sworn to uphold the law.
Were you referring to Reagan or Bush?
Given his history of loss after loss in front of the courts, I'm thinking the bets against Obama on this one have a better chance of paying off.
What's amazing is any level of support for a President who endlessly seeks to expand Executive power. If it were a Republican, the cries of an "imperial presidency" would be deafening, and ghosts of Nixon would paraded in every speech and comment against. And even if one didn't care about the politics, the economics make no sense from folks who regularly crow about "voting for their interests". How do millions of new low-skilled workers help the poor earn more or find work easier?
Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012
Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions? It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported. First, the Court rejected the administration’s power grab on recess appointments by making clear it could not decide when the Senate was in recess. Then it unanimously tossed out a law establishing abortion-clinic “buffer zones” against pro-life protests that the Obama administration argued on behalf of before the Court (though the case was led by Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley).
The tenure of both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder has been marked by a dangerous push to legitimize a vast expansion of the power of the federal government that endangers the liberty and freedom of Americans. They have taken such extreme position on key issues that the Court has uncharacteristically slapped them down time and time again. Historically, the Justice Department has won about 70 percent of its cases before the high court. But in each of the last three terms, the Court has ruled against the administration a majority of the time.
So even the liberal justices on the Court, including the two justices appointed by President Barack Obama — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — have disagreed with the DOJ’s positions. As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin told the Washington Times last year, “When the administration loses significant cases in unanimous decisions and cannot even hold the votes of its own appointees . . . it is an indication that they adopted such an extreme position on the scope of federal power that even generally sympathetic judges could not even support it.”
Those decisions are very revealing about the views of President Obama and Eric Holder: Their vision is one of unchecked federal power on immigration and environmental issues, on presidential prerogatives, and the taking of private property by the government; hostility to First Amendment freedoms that don’t meet the politically correct norms; and disregard of Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless government intrusion. These are positions that should alarm all Americans regardless of their political views, political-party affiliations, or background.
While yesterday’s Supreme Court decision unanimously rejecting the administration’s argument that a search warrant wasn’t required for the government to look at cell-phone records and data got a lot of attention, it’s not the first time the Obama administration has taken an anti–civil liberties stance. In last year’s case of U.S. v. Jones, the Justice Department essentially tried to convince the Supreme Court that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against search and seizure should not prevent the government from tracking any American at any time without any reason.
Justice argued that the police should be able to attach a GPS device to your car without a search warrant or even any reason to believe you committed a crime. Fortunately for those who fear the ever-growing power of the federal government, particularly its abuse of new technology, all nine justices agreed that the Fourth Amendment prevents the government from attaching a GPS to your car without getting a warrant.
Even Justice Sotomayor, President Obama’s own nominee to the Court, agreed that the government had invaded “privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to, Fourth Amendment protection.” But Eric Holder wanted to ignore the Bill of Rights and believed that his agents should be able to track all of your movements in public by attaching a GPS device to your car without permission from a judge. This is a frightening view of government power enhanced by new surveillance technology that would have directly threatened our liberty. When will liberals wake up to the fact that this administration takes positions on executive power that would make Richard Nixon and John Mitchell, his attorney general, blush?
Nothing. NOTHING will make the Obama sycophants turn against him. ANY objections will be dismissed as either partisan or racist.
For all you stat men, has any president ever had as many executive orders unamimously overturned by the Supreme Court as Obama has? I would be surprised if it were so.
Nothing. NOTHING will make the Obama sycophants turn against him. ANY objections will be dismissed as either partisan or racist.
Not that long ago during a previous Administration, you and others would not hear of any criticism of that President and accused those that did of having some sort of "derangement syndrome."
Comes around, goes around. Modern partisan politics, and the rhetoric in the sixth year of Obama's term almost mirrors the rhetoric of W's sixth year, but with the roles reversed.
In the meantime, nothing really gets done in DC. SSDD.
Nothing. NOTHING will make the Obama sycophants turn against him. ANY objections will be dismissed as either partisan or racist.
Not that long ago during a previous Administration, you and others would not hear of any criticism of that President and accused those that did of having some sort of "derangement syndrome."
Comes around, goes around. Modern partisan politics, and the rhetoric in the sixth year of Obama's term almost mirrors the rhetoric of W's sixth year, but with the roles reversed.
In the meantime, nothing really gets done in DC. SSDD.
In the prior administration we were speaking of issues of life and death, war, security etc. As far as I can tell all of these important matters had Congressional approval i.e. the Patriot Act, War resolutions etc. I certainly can understand (though don't agree with) opposition to the measures that were enacted after 9/11. But they were not unilaterally enacted though arguably a national emergency MIGHT have provided some justification. There is quite simply no justification for Obama to enact Immigration reform by Executive Fiat. He flat out said that he is acting because Congress refuses to. Ignore the fact that his idea of Congressional action is doing exactly what he wants no more no less. Even if its true that Congress simply refuses to act, there is no clause in the Constitution that entitles the Executive to take over legislative functions when Congress fails to act. As I pointed out he has been reversed UNANIMOUSLY by the Supreme Court a LOT. That point mentioned here by Fuji was utterly ignored by the Obama supporters because I guess it doesn't fit the narrative that the right is a monolith blocking Obama unless the liberals on the Supreme Court are now part of the right.
Yup, since it's Obama, it's different, and you and others were completely justified in calling other people deranged.
I knew all that already but thanks for the response.
Yup, since it's Obama, it's different, and you and others were completely justified in calling other people deranged.
I knew all that already but thanks for the response.
___________________________________________________________
And now for something completely different:
"calling other people deranged." is usually the liberal's response.
Yup, since it's Obama, it's different, and you and others were completely justified in calling other people deranged.
I knew all that already but thanks for the response.
___________________________________________________________
And now for something completely different:
"calling other people deranged." is usually the liberal's response.
I would never deny that there's a lot of terrible things said by people on all sides of the political spectrum.
Maybe someday everyone can move past the "So are you but what am I?" instant reactions. I doubt that will ever happen, though. It's a hard thing to stop doing, I've been trying for a while myself.
I do think it's incredibly disingenuous of you to insist that others use qualifiers when you yourself routinely insist on making the most broad-based statements you can.
Yup, since it's Obama, it's different, and you and others were completely justified in calling other people deranged.
I knew all that already but thanks for the response.
___________________________________________________________
And now for something completely different:
"calling other people deranged." is usually the liberal's response.
I would never deny that there's a lot of terrible things said by people on all sides of the political spectrum.
Maybe someday everyone can move past the "So are you but what am I?" instant reactions. I doubt that will ever happen, though. It's a hard thing to stop doing, I've been trying for a while myself.
I do think it's incredibly disingenuous of you to insist that others use qualifiers when you yourself routinely insist on making the most broad-based statements you can.
_________________________________________________________________________
Simplicity is necessary with some of the liberals.
Gong too deep just confuses them.
Nothing. NOTHING will make the Obama sycophants turn against him. ANY objections will be dismissed as either partisan or racist.
Not that long ago during a previous Administration, you and others would not hear of any criticism of that President and accused those that did of having some sort of "derangement syndrome."
Comes around, goes around. Modern partisan politics, and the rhetoric in the sixth year of Obama's term almost mirrors the rhetoric of W's sixth year, but with the roles reversed.
In the meantime, nothing really gets done in DC. SSDD.
In the prior administration we were speaking of issues of life and death, war, security etc. As far as I can tell all of these important matters had Congressional approval i.e. the Patriot Act, War resolutions etc. I certainly can understand (though don't agree with) opposition to the measures that were enacted after 9/11. But they were not unilaterally enacted though arguably a national emergency MIGHT have provided some justification. There is quite simply no justification for Obama to enact Immigration reform by Executive Fiat. He flat out said that he is acting because Congress refuses to. Ignore the fact that his idea of Congressional action is doing exactly what he wants no more no less. Even if its true that Congress simply refuses to act, there is no clause in the Constitution that entitles the Executive to take over legislative functions when Congress fails to act. As I pointed out he has been reversed UNANIMOUSLY by the Supreme Court a LOT. That point mentioned here by Fuji was utterly ignored by the Obama supporters because I guess it doesn't fit the narrative that the right is a monolith blocking Obama unless the liberals on the Supreme Court are now part of the right.
Actually there is a mechanism a President can use if Congress refuses to act and it is called Executive Order. And as been pointed out Regan and Bush II have used this device considerably more then Obama has the past 6 years despite the GOP's blatant obstructionism.
You may not like Obama using this perfectly legal political mechanism but you and other Conservatives are being hypocritical accusing him of abusing his power when recent GOP Presidents have "abused" this much more than he has.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101369574#.
Nothing. NOTHING will make the Obama sycophants turn against him. ANY objections will be dismissed as either partisan or racist.
Not that long ago during a previous Administration, you and others would not hear of any criticism of that President and accused those that did of having some sort of "derangement syndrome."
Comes around, goes around. Modern partisan politics, and the rhetoric in the sixth year of Obama's term almost mirrors the rhetoric of W's sixth year, but with the roles reversed.
In the meantime, nothing really gets done in DC. SSDD.
In the prior administration we were speaking of issues of life and death, war, security etc. As far as I can tell all of these important matters had Congressional approval i.e. the Patriot Act, War resolutions etc. I certainly can understand (though don't agree with) opposition to the measures that were enacted after 9/11. But they were not unilaterally enacted though arguably a national emergency MIGHT have provided some justification. There is quite simply no justification for Obama to enact Immigration reform by Executive Fiat. He flat out said that he is acting because Congress refuses to. Ignore the fact that his idea of Congressional action is doing exactly what he wants no more no less. Even if its true that Congress simply refuses to act, there is no clause in the Constitution that entitles the Executive to take over legislative functions when Congress fails to act. As I pointed out he has been reversed UNANIMOUSLY by the Supreme Court a LOT. That point mentioned here by Fuji was utterly ignored by the Obama supporters because I guess it doesn't fit the narrative that the right is a monolith blocking Obama unless the liberals on the Supreme Court are now part of the right.
Actually there is a mechanism a President can use if Congress refuses to act and it is called Executive Order. And as been pointed out Regan and Bush II have used this device considerably more then Obama has the past 6 years despite the GOP's blatant obstructionism.
You may not like Obama using this perfectly legal political mechanism but you and other Conservatives are being hypocritical accusing him of abusing his power when recent GOP Presidents have "abused" this much more than he has.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101369574#./blockquote >
In fact at he is currently on pace to sign the least number of EO's of any 2 term President since 1900.
And he has not been overruled by the Supreme Court "ALOT" when in fact many of the challenges were related to existing orders from the Bush Administration. Fuji's article about 13 of Obama's court rejections has been shown to be BS.
You Conservatives really should do your research before throwing Sh*t against the wall and hoping it sticks. Instead of relying on biased conservative news websites like the National Review try fact checking with nonpartisan fact checking organizations like Politifact and factcheck.org as they have no axe to grind.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/
[Edited on 2/19/2015 by Bill_Graham]
Nothing. NOTHING will make the Obama sycophants turn against him. ANY objections will be dismissed as either partisan or racist.
Not that long ago during a previous Administration, you and others would not hear of any criticism of that President and accused those that did of having some sort of "derangement syndrome."
Comes around, goes around. Modern partisan politics, and the rhetoric in the sixth year of Obama's term almost mirrors the rhetoric of W's sixth year, but with the roles reversed.
In the meantime, nothing really gets done in DC. SSDD.
In the prior administration we were speaking of issues of life and death, war, security etc. As far as I can tell all of these important matters had Congressional approval i.e. the Patriot Act, War resolutions etc. I certainly can understand (though don't agree with) opposition to the measures that were enacted after 9/11. But they were not unilaterally enacted though arguably a national emergency MIGHT have provided some justification. There is quite simply no justification for Obama to enact Immigration reform by Executive Fiat. He flat out said that he is acting because Congress refuses to. Ignore the fact that his idea of Congressional action is doing exactly what he wants no more no less. Even if its true that Congress simply refuses to act, there is no clause in the Constitution that entitles the Executive to take over legislative functions when Congress fails to act. As I pointed out he has been reversed UNANIMOUSLY by the Supreme Court a LOT. That point mentioned here by Fuji was utterly ignored by the Obama supporters because I guess it doesn't fit the narrative that the right is a monolith blocking Obama unless the liberals on the Supreme Court are now part of the right.
Actually there is a mechanism a President can use if Congress refuses to act and it is called Executive Order. And as been pointed out Regan and Bush II have used this device considerably more then Obama has the past 6 years despite the GOP's blatant obstructionism.
You may not like Obama using this perfectly legal political mechanism but you and other Conservatives are being hypocritical accusing him of abusing his power when recent GOP Presidents have "abused" this much more than he has.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101369574#./blockquote >
In fact at he is currently on pace to sign the least number of EO's of any 2 term President since 1900.
And he has not been overruled by the Supreme Court "ALOT" when in fact many of the challenges were related to existing orders from the Bush Administration. Fuji's article about 13 of Obama's court rejections has been shown to be BS.
You Conservatives really should do your research before throwing Sh*t against the wall and hoping it sticks. Instead of relying on biased conservative news websites like the National Review try fact checking with nonpartisan fact checking organizations like Politifact and factcheck.org as they have no axe to grind.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/
[Edited on 2/19/2015 by Bill_Graham]
___________________________________________________
The volume of Executive Orders is not the issue. It is the breadth.
Obama’s Executive Order on Immigration directly changes existing law and is therefore illegal.
Nothing. NOTHING will make the Obama sycophants turn against him. ANY objections will be dismissed as either partisan or racist.
Not that long ago during a previous Administration, you and others would not hear of any criticism of that President and accused those that did of having some sort of "derangement syndrome."
Comes around, goes around. Modern partisan politics, and the rhetoric in the sixth year of Obama's term almost mirrors the rhetoric of W's sixth year, but with the roles reversed.
In the meantime, nothing really gets done in DC. SSDD.
In the prior administration we were speaking of issues of life and death, war, security etc. As far as I can tell all of these important matters had Congressional approval i.e. the Patriot Act, War resolutions etc. I certainly can understand (though don't agree with) opposition to the measures that were enacted after 9/11. But they were not unilaterally enacted though arguably a national emergency MIGHT have provided some justification. There is quite simply no justification for Obama to enact Immigration reform by Executive Fiat. He flat out said that he is acting because Congress refuses to. Ignore the fact that his idea of Congressional action is doing exactly what he wants no more no less. Even if its true that Congress simply refuses to act, there is no clause in the Constitution that entitles the Executive to take over legislative functions when Congress fails to act. As I pointed out he has been reversed UNANIMOUSLY by the Supreme Court a LOT. That point mentioned here by Fuji was utterly ignored by the Obama supporters because I guess it doesn't fit the narrative that the right is a monolith blocking Obama unless the liberals on the Supreme Court are now part of the right.
Actually there is a mechanism a President can use if Congress refuses to act and it is called Executive Order. And as been pointed out Regan and Bush II have used this device considerably more then Obama has the past 6 years despite the GOP's blatant obstructionism.
You may not like Obama using this perfectly legal political mechanism but you and other Conservatives are being hypocritical accusing him of abusing his power when recent GOP Presidents have "abused" this much more than he has.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101369574#./blockquote >
In fact at he is currently on pace to sign the least number of EO's of any 2 term President since 1900.
And he has not been overruled by the Supreme Court "ALOT" when in fact many of the challenges were related to existing orders from the Bush Administration. Fuji's article about 13 of Obama's court rejections has been shown to be BS.
You Conservatives really should do your research before throwing Sh*t against the wall and hoping it sticks. Instead of relying on biased conservative news websites like the National Review try fact checking with nonpartisan fact checking organizations like Politifact and factcheck.org as they have no axe to grind.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/
[Edited on 2/19/2015 by Bill_Graham]
___________________________________________________
The volume of Executive Orders is not the issue. It is the breadth.
Obama’s Executive Order on Immigration directly changes existing law and is therefore illegal.
I am not commenting on the legality of the Immigration EO Mule, I was challenging yours and other conservatives vague claims that Obama has been abusing his power by issueing EO's and has been overruled "A LOT" of times by the Supreme Court. In both cases this is false.
If you and others are going to rant your hate towards Obama at least try to do your research and be factual.
If you and others are going to rant your hate towards Obama at least try to do your research and be factual.
You'd have better luck peeing into the wind and trying to keep your feet dry than getting muleboy to care about facts.
[Edited on 2/19/2015 by gondicar]
Nothing. NOTHING will make the Obama sycophants turn against him. ANY objections will be dismissed as either partisan or racist.
Not that long ago during a previous Administration, you and others would not hear of any criticism of that President and accused those that did of having some sort of "derangement syndrome."
Comes around, goes around. Modern partisan politics, and the rhetoric in the sixth year of Obama's term almost mirrors the rhetoric of W's sixth year, but with the roles reversed.
In the meantime, nothing really gets done in DC. SSDD.
In the prior administration we were speaking of issues of life and death, war, security etc. As far as I can tell all of these important matters had Congressional approval i.e. the Patriot Act, War resolutions etc. I certainly can understand (though don't agree with) opposition to the measures that were enacted after 9/11. But they were not unilaterally enacted though arguably a national emergency MIGHT have provided some justification. There is quite simply no justification for Obama to enact Immigration reform by Executive Fiat. He flat out said that he is acting because Congress refuses to. Ignore the fact that his idea of Congressional action is doing exactly what he wants no more no less. Even if its true that Congress simply refuses to act, there is no clause in the Constitution that entitles the Executive to take over legislative functions when Congress fails to act. As I pointed out he has been reversed UNANIMOUSLY by the Supreme Court a LOT. That point mentioned here by Fuji was utterly ignored by the Obama supporters because I guess it doesn't fit the narrative that the right is a monolith blocking Obama unless the liberals on the Supreme Court are now part of the right.
Actually there is a mechanism a President can use if Congress refuses to act and it is called Executive Order. And as been pointed out Regan and Bush II have used this device considerably more then Obama has the past 6 years despite the GOP's blatant obstructionism.
You may not like Obama using this perfectly legal political mechanism but you and other Conservatives are being hypocritical accusing him of abusing his power when recent GOP Presidents have "abused" this much more than he has.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101369574#./blockquote >
In fact at he is currently on pace to sign the least number of EO's of any 2 term President since 1900.
And he has not been overruled by the Supreme Court "ALOT" when in fact many of the challenges were related to existing orders from the Bush Administration. Fuji's article about 13 of Obama's court rejections has been shown to be BS.
You Conservatives really should do your research before throwing Sh*t against the wall and hoping it sticks. Instead of relying on biased conservative news websites like the National Review try fact checking with nonpartisan fact checking organizations like Politifact and factcheck.org as they have no axe to grind.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/
[Edited on 2/19/2015 by Bill_Graham]
___________________________________________________
The volume of Executive Orders is not the issue. It is the breadth.
Obama’s Executive Order on Immigration directly changes existing law and is therefore illegal.
I am not commenting on the legality of the Immigration EO Mule, I was challenging yours and other conservatives vague claims that Obama has been abusing his power by issueing EO's and has been overruled "A LOT" of times by the Supreme Court. In both cases this is false.
If you and others are going to rant your hate towards Obama at least try to do your research and be factual.
______________________________________________________________________
No "vague claims" have been posted.
obama's illegal Immigrations order is well supported as unlawful by many legal scholars, a federal judge and 26 States.
Simply because you bow before your anointed one doesn't make what obama does right.
BTW - it is not hate to be in opposition to obama, it is patriotic.
Nothing. NOTHING will make the Obama sycophants turn against him. ANY objections will be dismissed as either partisan or racist.
Not that long ago during a previous Administration, you and others would not hear of any criticism of that President and accused those that did of having some sort of "derangement syndrome."
Comes around, goes around. Modern partisan politics, and the rhetoric in the sixth year of Obama's term almost mirrors the rhetoric of W's sixth year, but with the roles reversed.
In the meantime, nothing really gets done in DC. SSDD.
In the prior administration we were speaking of issues of life and death, war, security etc. As far as I can tell all of these important matters had Congressional approval i.e. the Patriot Act, War resolutions etc. I certainly can understand (though don't agree with) opposition to the measures that were enacted after 9/11. But they were not unilaterally enacted though arguably a national emergency MIGHT have provided some justification. There is quite simply no justification for Obama to enact Immigration reform by Executive Fiat. He flat out said that he is acting because Congress refuses to. Ignore the fact that his idea of Congressional action is doing exactly what he wants no more no less. Even if its true that Congress simply refuses to act, there is no clause in the Constitution that entitles the Executive to take over legislative functions when Congress fails to act. As I pointed out he has been reversed UNANIMOUSLY by the Supreme Court a LOT. That point mentioned here by Fuji was utterly ignored by the Obama supporters because I guess it doesn't fit the narrative that the right is a monolith blocking Obama unless the liberals on the Supreme Court are now part of the right.
Actually there is a mechanism a President can use if Congress refuses to act and it is called Executive Order. And as been pointed out Regan and Bush II have used this device considerably more then Obama has the past 6 years despite the GOP's blatant obstructionism.
You may not like Obama using this perfectly legal political mechanism but you and other Conservatives are being hypocritical accusing him of abusing his power when recent GOP Presidents have "abused" this much more than he has.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101369574#./blockquote >
In fact at he is currently on pace to sign the least number of EO's of any 2 term President since 1900.
And he has not been overruled by the Supreme Court "ALOT" when in fact many of the challenges were related to existing orders from the Bush Administration. Fuji's article about 13 of Obama's court rejections has been shown to be BS.
You Conservatives really should do your research before throwing Sh*t against the wall and hoping it sticks. Instead of relying on biased conservative news websites like the National Review try fact checking with nonpartisan fact checking organizations like Politifact and factcheck.org as they have no axe to grind.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/
[Edited on 2/19/2015 by Bill_Graham]
___________________________________________________
The volume of Executive Orders is not the issue. It is the breadth.
Obama’s Executive Order on Immigration directly changes existing law and is therefore illegal.
I am not commenting on the legality of the Immigration EO Mule, I was challenging yours and other conservatives vague claims that Obama has been abusing his power by issueing EO's and has been overruled "A LOT" of times by the Supreme Court. In both cases this is false.
If you and others are going to rant your hate towards Obama at least try to do your research and be factual.
______________________________________________________________________
No "vague claims" have been posted.
obama's illegal Immigrations order is well supported as unlawful by many legal scholars, a federal judge and 26 States.
Simply because you bow before your anointed one doesn't make what obama does right.
BTW - it is not hate to be in opposition to obama, it is patriotic.
Again you are not getting it. I never commented on whether what he did was legal or not I was challenging yours, Doug's and Fuji's view that Obama is abusing his powers by issuing Executive Orders and Fuji's and Doug's BS claim that Obama has a history of being rejected by the courts which is a blatant lie.
Also responding with insults in every one of your posts does not make your opinions more valid and is one of the reasons you have little credibility here. Instead using insults to deflect you should try to defend your position with facts.
[Edited on 2/19/2015 by Bill_Graham]
Again you are not getting it. I never commented on whether what he did was legal or not I was challenging yours, Doug's and Fuji's view that Obama is abusing his powers by issuing Executive Orders and Fuji's and Doug's BS claim that Obama has a history of being rejected by the courts which is a blatant lie.
Also responding with insults in every one of your posts does not make your opinions more valid and is one of the reasons you have little credibility here. Instead using insults to deflect you should try to defend your position with facts.
Good luck with Muleman ever "getting it". I'm tired of his derisive name calling and ignorant right wing hate spewing. I'm surprised he hasn't been play penned. If it were up to me I'd ban him. As it is I'm just going to ignore the Mule. He contributes nothing to the conversation. At first I was entertained by the sheer ignorance exemplified. My disgust over his vile hate has overwhelmed any entertainment value of those posts.
Again you are not getting it. I never commented on whether what he did was legal or not I was challenging yours, Doug's and Fuji's view that Obama is abusing his powers by issuing Executive Orders and Fuji's and Doug's BS claim that Obama has a history of being rejected by the courts which is a blatant lie.
Also responding with insults in every one of your posts does not make your opinions more valid and is one of the reasons you have little credibility here. Instead using insults to deflect you should try to defend your position with facts.
Good luck with Muleman ever "getting it". I'm tired of his derisive name calling and ignorant right wing hate spewing. I'm surprised he hasn't been play penned. If it were up to me I'd ban him. As it is I'm just going to ignore the Mule. He contributes nothing to the conversation. At first I was entertained by the sheer ignorance exemplified. My disgust over his vile hate has overwhelmed any entertainment value of those posts.
Yeah I have been trying to not respond to his posts but sometimes the stuff he says is just so blatantly BS it is hard to not call him out.
I don't know if I would ban him as he is basically harmless IMHO. I belong to several forums and there is always one person who is a little nutty. Ignoring him would hurt more than a ban as nobody likes being ignored.
I'll ignore that. 
Again you are not getting it. I never commented on whether what he did was legal or not I was challenging yours, Doug's and Fuji's view that Obama is abusing his powers by issuing Executive Orders and Fuji's and Doug's BS claim that Obama has a history of being rejected by the courts which is a blatant lie.
Also responding with insults in every one of your posts does not make your opinions more valid and is one of the reasons you have little credibility here. Instead using insults to deflect you should try to defend your position with facts.
Good luck with Muleman ever "getting it". I'm tired of his derisive name calling and ignorant right wing hate spewing. I'm surprised he hasn't been play penned. If it were up to me I'd ban him. As it is I'm just going to ignore the Mule. He contributes nothing to the conversation. At first I was entertained by the sheer ignorance exemplified. My disgust over his vile hate has overwhelmed any entertainment value of those posts.
Yeah I have been trying to not respond to his posts but sometimes the stuff he says is just so blatantly BS it is hard to not call him out.
I don't know if I would ban him as he is basically harmless IMHO. I belong to several forums and there is always one person who is a little nutty. Ignoring him would hurt more than a ban as nobody likes being ignored.
___________________________________________________________________
Yea, the liberals are all for free speech as long as it is only them speaking.
One of these days you might learn to craft an intelligent argument to support your position but then again, you rarely ever take a position.
Gee, you keep repeating that... sounds vaguely familiar............
Gee, you keep repeating that... sounds vaguely familiar............
_______________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your contribution to the thread.
As usual your words help us all to understand your point of view.
Reminds me of an old attention whore who was banned from here years ago.
Reminds me of an old attention whore who was banned from here years ago.
Who?
Obama and holder knew this ruling was coming for months. So why have they not filed an appeal?
I see PhotoRon still has nothing to contribute.
Repeating 'Yea, the liberals are all for free speech as long as it is only them speaking' isn't much of a contribution either........
Repeating 'Yea, the liberals are all for free speech as long as it is only them speaking' isn't much of a contribution either........
_____________________________________________________________________
Repeatedly posting with nothing to say isn't much of a contribution either........
