Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Because you say so? Not likely. My point is solid.
Your comment on Clinton is a red herring or a false analogy to deflect. Your wrong on either account.
Constitutionally speaking, the President, in and of himself, does not have the power to repeal a law.
Romney has said time and time again, that if he elected, he would repeal Obamacare day one. Either he is a) ignorant of what the Constitution states, b) believes in using "Executive Order" to further bastardize the Constitution and it's proper adjudication, or c) using an empty talking point in hopes of swaying votes his way.
Try reading all my posts.Constitutionally speaking, the President, in and of himself, does not have the power to repeal a law.
Romney has said time and time again, that if he elected, he would repeal Obamacare day one. Either he is a) ignorant of what the Constitution states, b) believes in using "Executive Order" to further bastardize the Constitution and it's proper adjudication, or c) using an empty talking point in hopes of swaying votes his way.
That's not what he said. You are omitting a couple words. He's has said he would 'act' from day 1 to repeal Obamacare.
Because you say so? Not likely. My point is solid.
Your comment on Clinton is a red herring or a false analogy to deflect. Your wrong on either account.
What are you talking about? So your response is, surprisingly, Bush did it? And I'm deflecting!? You are delusional, and haven't proven anything.
I asked a simple question in the OP, and what you offered does not address it at all.
Because you are not capable to differentiating between presidential signing statements, which every administration in the last fifty years has used, and presidential decree to ignore federal laws, which no modern administration has done, then you are only highlighting the extent of your willful ignorance driven by your political bias.
Because you say so? Not likely. My point is solid.
Your comment on Clinton is a red herring or a false analogy to deflect. Your wrong on either account.
What are you talking about? So your response is, surprisingly, Bush did it? And I'm deflecting!? You are delusional, and haven't proven anything.
I asked a simple question in the OP, and what you offered does not address it at all.
Yes, you are deflecting, your OP has been resoundly rebuked, you have deflected, and you can't admit your fail. Obvious.
That is your rebuttal? This administration has taken unprecedented actions and destroyed the rule of law--and all you can offer is a childish comment about police (NOT Federal Officers) and a presidential administration openly flaunting federal laws.
Well sure. Your op is fucking stupid.
law officers of all agencies pick and choose what laws to follow. Not my fault you are fucking stupid and have to make a point of it.
Also, please give us all an example of law officers choosing not to follow laws? Give us all an example of a previous presidential administration decreeing that they will be directing their agencies to flaunt federal law--choosing not to enforce it.
This should be interesting. You are purposely misrepresenting the facts, or, more likely, willfully ignorant.
Well sure. Your op is fucking stupid.
law officers of all agencies pick and choose what laws to follow. Not my fault you are fucking stupid and have to make a point of it.
Also, please give us all an example of law officers choosing not to follow laws? Give us all an example of a previous presidential administration decreeing that they will be directing their agencies to flaunt federal law--choosing not to enforce it.
This should be interesting. You are purposely misrepresenting the facts, or, more likely, willfully ignorant.
Look up any blue law. Or when you are going 40 in a 35 and pass a cop. When you are drinking and the cop just tells you to drive safe home.
Too easy...
Constitutionally speaking, the President, in and of himself, does not have the power to repeal a law.
Romney has said time and time again, that if he elected, he would repeal Obamacare day one. Either he is a) ignorant of what the Constitution states, b) believes in using "Executive Order" to further bastardize the Constitution and it's proper adjudication, or c) using an empty talking point in hopes of swaying votes his way.
What are you talking about? So your response is, surprisingly, Bush did it? And I'm deflecting!? You are delusional, and haven't proven anything.
I asked a simple question in the OP, and what you offered does not address it at all.
Yes, you are deflecting, your OP has been resoundly rebuked, you have deflected, and you can't admit your fail. Obvious.
Rebuked by whom? You?
You haven't told me what would prevent a Romney administration from directing his Secretary of Health and Human Services from not enforcing the Affordable Care Act, which does not get fully implemented until 2014.
Concentrate real hard, do not invoke Bush, and see if you can come up with something insightful to say--because you have not addressed anything in the OP thus far. The fact that you don't understand that is pathetic.
Constitutionally speaking, the President, in and of himself, does not have the power to repeal a law.
Romney has said time and time again, that if he elected, he would repeal Obamacare day one. Either he is a) ignorant of what the Constitution states, b) believes in using "Executive Order" to further bastardize the Constitution and it's proper adjudication, or c) using an empty talking point in hopes of swaying votes his way.
Romney has a heavy schedule DAY ONE; this the third or fourth day long act he has promised to perform on DAY ONE.
That is your rebuttal? This administration has taken unprecedented actions and destroyed the rule of law--and all you can offer is a childish comment about police (NOT Federal Officers) and a presidential administration openly flaunting federal laws.
Well sure. Your op is fucking stupid.
law officers of all agencies pick and choose what laws to follow. Not my fault you are fucking stupid and have to make a point of it.
You know using profanity like a child doesn't make anything you say more relevant or insightful. You haven't addressed anything in the OP, besides of course the incredibly deep "your op is fucking stupid", and of course you believe you have proven something.
Again, what prevents a future administration from simply ignoring and not enforcing federal law--be it immigration laws or the Affordable Care Act. Think about it, and try to contribute something beyond what a child would say.
Lol moving the goal posts I see.Also, please give us all an example of law officers choosing not to follow laws? Give us all an example of a previous presidential administration decreeing that they will be directing their agencies to flaunt federal law--choosing not to enforce it.
This should be interesting. You are purposely misrepresenting the facts, or, more likely, willfully ignorant.
Look up any blue law. Or when you are going 40 in a 35 and pass a cop. When you are drinking and the cop just tells you to drive safe home.
Too easy...
You can not honestly be this stupid. State speeding laws are not relevant, nor is any state laws and the actions of Barney Fife--the fact that I have to inform you of this is telling.
We are talking about federal laws. What federal laws do federal law enforcement willfully not enforce. You are trying to compare a police officer not enforcing speeding laws to federal agents ignoring federal law.
FAIL.
Google is a goof ball. Makes an OP, can't support, deflects, gets batted back, and then cries because he can't handle the rebuttal.
Either the law is constitutional or not, Google.
Well sure. Your op is fucking stupid.
law officers of all agencies pick and choose what laws to follow. Not my fault you are fucking stupid and have to make a point of it.
You know using profanity like a child doesn't make anything you say more relevant or insightful. You haven't addressed anything in the OP, besides of course the incredibly deep "your op is fucking stupid", and of course you believe you have proven something.
Again, what prevents a future administration from simply ignoring and not enforcing federal law--be it immigration laws or the Affordable Care Act. Think about it, and try to contribute something beyond what a child would say.
I am 70 years old. Every president in my memory has selectively chosen to enforce, or not to enforce, government regulations. The EPA during the Bush administration was virtually non functional. They have all done it and they will continue to do so.
Here is a little history on the executive order business. You will find there have been quite a few and they are definitely not a new thing. Read and enjoy!
ThisNation.com--What is an Executive Order?
Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index
Yes, you are deflecting, your OP has been resoundly rebuked, you have deflected, and you can't admit your fail. Obvious.
Rebuked by whom? You?
You haven't told me what would prevent a Romney administration from directing his Secretary of Health and Human Services from not enforcing the Affordable Care Act, which does not get fully implemented until 2014.
Concentrate real hard, do not invoke Bush, and see if you can come up with something insightful to say--because you have not addressed anything in the OP thus far. The fact that you don't understand that is pathetic.
Now you are shifting your argument? Then you are admitting the ACA is constitutional.
Then shut up, because you have just crossed yourself.
You can't follow your own argument, Minion.
Lol moving the goal posts I see.Look up any blue law. Or when you are going 40 in a 35 and pass a cop. When you are drinking and the cop just tells you to drive safe home.
Too easy...
You can not honestly be this stupid. State speeding laws are not relevant, nor is any state laws and the actions of Barney Fife--the fact that I have to inform you of this is telling.
We are talking about federal laws. What federal laws do federal law enforcement willfully not enforce. You are trying to compare a police officer not enforcing speeding laws to federal agents ignoring federal law.
FAIL.
Yeah I am, both are laws there captain. See any normal person understands that saying something isn't a priority doesn't mean they are ignoring the law. They are just not concentrating efforts and money in that area.
Its sad you are that stupid not to understand such a simple concept.
