From STOTU address - Is Obama Emperor Palpatine?

Do none of you remember calling this a good idea when it first came out over a month ago?

Come on you have you have to remember when it came out that he wanted to get rid of the commerce department and streamline the executive branch, it was generally hailed as a Good Ron Paul type idea. Maybe someone more skilled at searching for old threads can dig it up.
 
Do none of you remember calling this a good idea when it first came out over a month ago?

Come on you have you have to remember when it came out that he wanted to get rid of the commerce department and streamline the executive branch, it was generally hailed as a Good Ron Paul type idea. Maybe someone more skilled at searching for old threads can dig it up.
But he is now asking for powers over and above the Constitutional defintion. HE has already stated that he "will NOT wait for Congress to act"...a few times.

Wake up.
 
Do none of you remember calling this a good idea when it first came out over a month ago?

Come on you have you have to remember when it came out that he wanted to get rid of the commerce department and streamline the executive branch, it was generally hailed as a Good Ron Paul type idea. Maybe someone more skilled at searching for old threads can dig it up.

Is the Commerce Dept one of the three executive branches...? what about the EPA, because he wants it gone too? Ron Paul that is.

Get a clue man... otherwise go away.
The adults are talking rigt now :eusa_hand:
 

How did I know you would be a Paulbot :confused:

I plan to vote for Santorum if given the chance... and NO not all politicians are evil dude.

C'mon, grow up man!!!

If you want a Theocrat, that's your choice.

So just for the fun of it.... will you just sit out the election if R. Paul does'nt get the knod from GOP voters?

I'm voting for Johnson, not Paul, although I'll probably vote for Paul during the primaries.
 
So just for the fun of it.... will you just sit out the election if R. Paul does'nt get the knod from GOP voters?

I'm voting for Johnson, not Paul, although I'll probably vote for Paul during the primaries.

So he is running for POTUS?

Wow...

Johnson was a popular and effective governor, and unfortunately, the RNC did everything it could to block him from the debates. They would have done the same to Paul if he didn't have a strong following.
 
Here's an article on what he is asking.

Obama challenges Republicans on goal they embrace - Yahoo! News

"On government reorganization, Obama wants a guarantee from Congress that he could get a vote within 90 days on any idea to consolidate federal agencies, provided his plan saves money and cuts the government. His first order of business would be to merge six major trade and commerce agencies into one, eliminating the Commerce Department, among others.
The proposal is a challenge to congressional Republicans because it embraces the traditional GOP goal of smaller government.
"These changes will make it easier for small-business owners to get the loans and support they need to sell their products around the world," he said."
 
Do none of you remember calling this a good idea when it first came out over a month ago?

Come on you have you have to remember when it came out that he wanted to get rid of the commerce department and streamline the executive branch, it was generally hailed as a Good Ron Paul type idea. Maybe someone more skilled at searching for old threads can dig it up.
But he is now asking for powers over and above the Constitutional defintion. HE has already stated that he "will NOT wait for Congress to act"...a few times.

Wake up.

The executive branch has substational leeway in how it is organized, so I'm not seeing a problem here. The constitution just says we have an executive branch, it gives no specifics on how departments are organized or who reports to what.

Considering the GOP has been calling to reduce the number of departments for years, I'm not seeing what their philosophical objection is here, other than we just hate Obama on principle.
 
If you want a Theocrat, that's your choice.
Obama a theocrat? (If one presumes Gubmint is a religion, then I guess it could be said)...

Santorum is one. Obama isn't. Obama has several other problems, however.
No. Santorum belives that without a moral compass, a society cannot survive...particuliarally with the deterioration of the American family unit being cohesive, and where Government has taken ON that role by design when they have no business doing so.
 
Come on you have you have to remember when it came out that he wanted to get rid of the commerce department and streamline the executive branch, it was generally hailed as a Good Ron Paul type idea. Maybe someone more skilled at searching for old threads can dig it up.
But he is now asking for powers over and above the Constitutional defintion. HE has already stated that he "will NOT wait for Congress to act"...a few times.

Wake up.

The executive branch has substational leeway in how it is organized, so I'm not seeing a problem here. The constitution just says we have an executive branch, it gives no specifics on how departments are organized or who reports to what.

Considering the GOP has been calling to reduce the number of departments for years, I'm not seeing what their philosophical objection is here, other than we just hate Obama on principle.
I do...or has the role of the unelected/unaccountable Czars outside the cabinet escaped you?
 
I'm voting for Johnson, not Paul, although I'll probably vote for Paul during the primaries.

So he is running for POTUS?

Wow...

Johnson was a popular and effective governor, and unfortunately, the RNC did everything it could to block him from the debates. They would have done the same to Paul if he didn't have a strong following.

That is the problem with you libertarians... I too have alot of the same leanings, but I refuse to throw away my vote just for principles.
That is exactly why Obama is president today... folks just not showing up, or just writing in their guy. All because thy didnt like McCain!
I didnt like him either, but I would never just throw away my vote! That is just plan stupid!

Please man, rethink it. We cant afford 4 more years of this tyrant in the White House.
:eusa_pray:
 
Obama: “Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last -– an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.”

Founders: First and foremost, the president does not have the constitutional authority to “lay out a blueprint” for the American economy. He is not legislator-in-chief or the prime minister. He can make “recommendations” as the Constitution states, but that does not involve a legislative agenda.

Incorrect. That was, in fact, a "recommendation," and there is nothing in the Constitution that says the president's recommendations cannot include a legislative agenda. He cannot actually ENACT legislation, of course, but he has as much right to SUGGEST legislation as I do, or anyone else.

Obama: “Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China.”

Founders: Where does the Constitution give you such authority?

It's not the Constitution, it's Congress, which has authorized a number of federal agencies with that authority.

Obama: “Join me in a national commitment to train 2 million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My administration has already lined up more companies that want to help.”

Founders: Again, Mr. Obama, where can you find the constitutional authority for such activity? There are no delegated powers in the Constitution, either for the congress or the executive to build educational partnerships. That is a state issue.

Untrue. All the power to do this comes either from the first clause of Article I, Section 8 (the tax and spend clause), or else is merely a matter of communication, which any American may do.

Obama: “Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched.”

Founders: And only the federal government can provide these resources?

It's not a question of CAN. It's a question of WILL. And in many cases, the answer is yes.

First, they are unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 8, first clause. No, they're not.

Second, the most innovative things in the history of the world were produced by private enterprise

Most of them were produced with substantial government assistance, direct or indirect.

and third the United States is broke.

It's impossible for a nation with control over its own currency to ever be "broke." Nor does it make any kind of sense to balance the budget by cutting investment that is crucial for future wealth production. There are plenty of much better places to cut. That's not a good choice.

Obama: “I’ve already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing dangers of cyber-threats.”

Founders: You have “sent this Congress legislation”? See our first point.

Obama can send Congress legislation. For that matter, I can send Congress legislation, although if he does it Congress is more likely to take it seriously. He doesn't get to vote on it, but anyone can propose it. You just have to be able to communicate.

Obama: “The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy, so that our government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.”

Founders: This is, perhaps, the grossest distortion of the Constitution of the night. The executive branch was designed not to be the focus of the government. We assured the people of the States in 1787 and 1788 that the president would have limited power.

Just because the government as originally implemented and as it existed for decades did not have as much power in the executive branch as it does today, does not mean that the Constitution was written with that in mind. In fact, the document was crafted with considerable flexibility to it, and with the potential to implement powers that were not exercised for a very long time.

Furthermore, congress cannot “grant you the authority” to do anything.

Nonsense. The flow of government is: Congress makes the law, the executive branch enforces/implements it. EVERY act of Congress, therefore, grants the executive branch the authority to do something, or else denies it that authority explicitly where it was once granted.

As a final point, for any one person to speak for "the Founders," as if they were of one mind and opinion, is a remarkably ignorant conceit. There is almost nothing that can be said that all of them agreed on, except that we did not want a monarchy and that we needed a stronger central government. All else in the Constitution is a compromise among divergent interests and beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Obama a theocrat? (If one presumes Gubmint is a religion, then I guess it could be said)...

Santorum is one. Obama isn't. Obama has several other problems, however.
No. Santorum belives that without a moral compass, a society cannot survive...particuliarally with the deterioration of the American family unit being cohesive, and where Government has taken ON that role by design when they have no business doing so.

Wouldn't the government's inability to properly instill morals be a logical argument for keeping the government out of our personal lives?
 

So he is running for POTUS?

Wow...

Johnson was a popular and effective governor, and unfortunately, the RNC did everything it could to block him from the debates. They would have done the same to Paul if he didn't have a strong following.

That is the problem with you libertarians... I too have alot of the same leanings, but I refuse to throw away my vote just for principles.
That is exactly why Obama is president today... folks just not showing up, or just writing in their guy. All because thy didnt like McCain!
I didnt like him either, but I would never just throw away my vote! That is just plan stupid!

Please man, rethink it. We cant afford 4 more years of this tyrant in the White House.
:eusa_pray:

I'm not convinced it would be much different with Romney (or even better for that matter).

Santorum would be worse than Obama though.
 
Santorum is one. Obama isn't. Obama has several other problems, however.
No. Santorum belives that without a moral compass, a society cannot survive...particuliarally with the deterioration of the American family unit being cohesive, and where Government has taken ON that role by design when they have no business doing so.

Wouldn't the government's inability to properly instill morals be a logical argument for keeping the government out of our personal lives?

Santorum has no plans on turnng the system on its head... the media keeps pushing all the religious shit because they want you to focus on that.
Santorum just wants to right the ship and get us back on course to prosperity.
 
Johnson was a popular and effective governor, and unfortunately, the RNC did everything it could to block him from the debates. They would have done the same to Paul if he didn't have a strong following.

That is the problem with you libertarians... I too have alot of the same leanings, but I refuse to throw away my vote just for principles.
That is exactly why Obama is president today... folks just not showing up, or just writing in their guy. All because thy didnt like McCain!
I didnt like him either, but I would never just throw away my vote! That is just plan stupid!

Please man, rethink it. We cant afford 4 more years of this tyrant in the White House.
:eusa_pray:

I'm not convinced it would be much different with Romney (or even better for that matter).

Santorum would be worse than Obama though.

Prove your point.... otherwise I am dismissing you as a lunatic
:eusa_hand:
 

Forum List

Back
Top