How many would like Obama to ignore Congress?

[rightwinger]

Because he is an anti-constitutional fucktard, like the rest of you.

If you think what he is doing is unconstitutional, why don't you sue him?

Ooops! Already trying that one aren't ya?

It's comical and sad to see the willful glee of progressives when our system of government is prostituted. Of course, the progressives have joined the "end justifies the means club" years ago, and they get their bend over buddies in the media to cover them while it happens.

You don't see shutting down the government, blocking all legislation, threatening default and crippling the judicial and executive branches by blocking appointments is "prostituting government"?

 

[Jackson]

Realist

Government by its very nature is a power struggle. In the absence of a functioning Congress, the President has filled the void

If Congress doesn't like it they can start compromising, legislating and doing their jobs. Then they can make the President back down

They are doing their jobs, which is stopping you assholes.

Well then why all the whining about Obama?

Editec's post:

The limitations of Executive Orders make such a proposal rather silly.

XOs are orders given to the government based on existing authority.

No XO can supercede the limit on the executive branch.

XOs are NOT a replacement for existing laws.

XOs are procedural orders for how the executive branch conducts business, not new laws.

Rightwing, you thanked editec for his post, noted above which included the bolded sentence. Obama is frequently replacing existing laws in Obamacare to his very whim.

If pressed, that alone could be used against him in impeachment proceedings.

 

[Wildman]

Congess has ignored its responsibility to legislate

It has created a power vacuum that Obama and the courts are filling

Republicans are just pissed that in spite of their efforts to gridlock government until they return to power, Obama is still finding ways to lead

answer the ******* question, Mr.Numbnutz.

Reading comprehension is not one of your stronger points?

when it comes to reading comprehension, you fail miserably.., answer the ******* question>>>>>>>>---------------------> How many of you would like to see Obama bypass all of that nonsense and just use Executive Orders to enact what ever legislation you feel needs enacting?

i put in bold large letters like you may have learned in third grade..., if you got that far.


BTW..,

 

[Wildman]

If you think what he is doing is unconstitutional, why don't you sue him?

Ooops! Already trying that one aren't ya?

It's comical and sad to see the willful glee of progressives when our system of government is prostituted. Of course, the progressives have joined the "end justifies the means club" years ago, and they get their bend over buddies in the media to cover them while it happens.

You don't see shutting down the government, blocking all legislation, threatening default and crippling the judicial and executive branches by blocking appointments is "prostituting government"?

..... and

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Many cheer him on.

 

[rightwinger]

They are doing their jobs, which is stopping you assholes.

Well then why all the whining about Obama?

Editec's post:

The limitations of Executive Orders make such a proposal rather silly.

XOs are orders given to the government based on existing authority.

No XO can supercede the limit on the executive branch.

XOs are NOT a replacement for existing laws.

XOs are procedural orders for how the executive branch conducts business, not new laws.

Rightwing, you thanked editec for his post, noted above which included the bolded sentence. Obama is frequently replacing existing laws in Obamacare to his very whim.

If pressed, that alone could be used against him in impeachment proceedings.

No he hasn't replaced them. He is just utilizing executive power in enforcing them

 

[rightwinger]

It's comical and sad to see the willful glee of progressives when our system of government is prostituted. Of course, the progressives have joined the "end justifies the means club" years ago, and they get their bend over buddies in the media to cover them while it happens.

You don't see shutting down the government, blocking all legislation, threatening default and crippling the judicial and executive branches by blocking appointments is "prostituting government"?

..... and

I agree

That is what Republicans have said to America

 

[rightwinger]

answer the ******* question, Mr.Numbnutz.

Reading comprehension is not one of your stronger points?

when it comes to reading comprehension, you fail miserably.., answer the ******* question>>>>>>>>---------------------> How many of you would like to see Obama bypass all of that nonsense and just use Executive Orders to enact what ever legislation you feel needs enacting?

i put in bold large letters like you may have learned in third grade..., if you got that far.


BTW..,

I see that even in large fonts your reading comprehension skills are feeble. What, in any of my posts, does not answer that question?

 

[Jackson]

Well then why all the whining about Obama?

Editec's post:

The limitations of Executive Orders make such a proposal rather silly.

XOs are orders given to the government based on existing authority.

No XO can supercede the limit on the executive branch.

XOs are NOT a replacement for existing laws.

XOs are procedural orders for how the executive branch conducts business, not new laws.

Rightwing, you thanked editec for his post, noted above which included the bolded sentence. Obama is frequently replacing existing laws in Obamacare to his very whim.

If pressed, that alone could be used against him in impeachment proceedings.

No he hasn't replaced them. He is just utilizing executive power in enforcing them

When he kept changing the dates, those dates were prescribed by law. If he wanted them changed, he had to go to Congress. Not a willy nilly, changing that law. That was hardly enforcing the law.

The law didn't dictate, "date to be changed at the discretion of the President if not enough people have signed up by the given date."

 

[rightwinger]

Editec's post:



Rightwing, you thanked editec for his post, noted above which included the bolded sentence. Obama is frequently replacing existing laws in Obamacare to his very whim.

If pressed, that alone could be used against him in impeachment proceedings.

No he hasn't replaced them. He is just utilizing executive power in enforcing them

When he kept changing the dates, those dates were prescribed by law. If he wanted them changed, he had to go to Congress. Not a willy nilly, changing that law. That was hardly enforcing the law.

The law didn't dictate, "date to be changed at the discretion of the President if not enough people have signed up by the given date."

Take him to court. That is where you must provide your burden of proof that he has exceeded his presidential powers

You will, of course, lose

 

[Jackson]

No he hasn't replaced them. He is just utilizing executive power in enforcing them

When he kept changing the dates, those dates were prescribed by law. If he wanted them changed, he had to go to Congress. Not a willy nilly, changing that law. That was hardly enforcing the law.

The law didn't dictate, "date to be changed at the discretion of the President if not enough people have signed up by the given date."

Take him to court. That is where you must provide your burden of proof that he has exceeded his presidential powers

You will, of course, lose

I believe that is in the works. And, didn't he just lose in the SC about the recess appointments he tried to pull?

 

[Jackson]

RW, your silence indicates to me that you have caved in and agree with me. Wise choice.

 

[westwall]

Well then why all the whining about Obama?

Editec's post:

The limitations of Executive Orders make such a proposal rather silly.

XOs are orders given to the government based on existing authority.

No XO can supercede the limit on the executive branch.

XOs are NOT a replacement for existing laws.

XOs are procedural orders for how the executive branch conducts business, not new laws.

Rightwing, you thanked editec for his post, noted above which included the bolded sentence. Obama is frequently replacing existing laws in Obamacare to his very whim.

If pressed, that alone could be used against him in impeachment proceedings.

No he hasn't replaced them. He is just utilizing executive power in enforcing them

How exactly is that? If there is no law it CAN'T be "enforced". If there is a law that benefits the Dems you can bet your ass it is enforced, thus where there is no law Obama has been using EO's to enact procedures he wants.

 

[Lakhota]

We all know that Congress is, to be kind, incompetent. They can't work together on anything. How many of you would like to see Obama bypass all of that nonsense and just use Executive Orders to enact what ever legislation you feel needs enacting?

Just wondering...

Only a fool would want that, not only for Constitutional checks and balances, but also for the fact that future presidents of the opposing party could do the same thing.

The present gridlock sucks, but it's all we have. However, I support Obama in using all legal executive powers to do what he thinks is best for America.

Although slow to bring about change, I'm a strong believer in elections to sort things out.

 

[martybegan]

If you think what he is doing is unconstitutional, why don't you sue him?

Ooops! Already trying that one aren't ya?

It's comical and sad to see the willful glee of progressives when our system of government is prostituted. Of course, the progressives have joined the "end justifies the means club" years ago, and they get their bend over buddies in the media to cover them while it happens.

You don't see shutting down the government, blocking all legislation, threatening default and crippling the judicial and executive branches by blocking appointments is "prostituting government"?

1. The government, even when "shutdown" ran all the essential items, it took Obama's Shutdown Theater to make it even noticeable.

2. They are not blocking "all legislation" just ones they don't like.

3. Default may be the best thing to happen, it would wake people up to the gravity of run away federal spending.

4. That's a senate issue, not a house issue. Try to stay focused. Besides the 60 person limit in the senate was removed for certain things, I look forward to your crocodile tears after the 2014 elections where we get to push through appointees YOUR side hates.

 

[g5000]

We all know that Congress is, to be kind, incompetent. They can't work together on anything. How many of you would like to see Obama bypass all of that nonsense and just use Executive Orders to enact what ever legislation you feel needs enacting?

Just wondering...

If Congress is not doing what you think they need to do in cooperation with the President, then give the President a new Congress at the next election.

 

[rightwinger]

It's comical and sad to see the willful glee of progressives when our system of government is prostituted. Of course, the progressives have joined the "end justifies the means club" years ago, and they get their bend over buddies in the media to cover them while it happens.

You don't see shutting down the government, blocking all legislation, threatening default and crippling the judicial and executive branches by blocking appointments is "prostituting government"?

1. The government, even when "shutdown" ran all the essential items, it took Obama's Shutdown Theater to make it even noticeable.

2. They are not blocking "all legislation" just ones they don't like.

3. Default may be the best thing to happen, it would wake people up to the gravity of run away federal spending.

4. That's a senate issue, not a house issue. Try to stay focused. Besides the 60 person limit in the senate was removed for certain things, I look forward to your crocodile tears after the 2014 elections where we get to push through appointees YOUR side hates.

Are you expecting a presidential election in 2014?
How else do you name appointees?

 

[Lakhota]

Regarding the 2014 elections, I expect Republicans will likely retain control of the House, but I remain hopeful that Democrats will retain control of the Senate. Otherwise, it will be two totally wasted years of pure chaos and gridlock.

 

[rightwinger]

Regarding the 2014 elections, I expect Republicans will likely retain control of the House, but I remain hopeful that Democrats will retain control of the Senate. Otherwise, it will be two totally wasted years of pure chaos and gridlock.

We have chaos and gridlock right now

Expect Obama to continue using Executive Orders

 

[martybegan]

You don't see shutting down the government, blocking all legislation, threatening default and crippling the judicial and executive branches by blocking appointments is "prostituting government"?

1. The government, even when "shutdown" ran all the essential items, it took Obama's Shutdown Theater to make it even noticeable.

2. They are not blocking "all legislation" just ones they don't like.

3. Default may be the best thing to happen, it would wake people up to the gravity of run away federal spending.

4. That's a senate issue, not a house issue. Try to stay focused. Besides the 60 person limit in the senate was removed for certain things, I look forward to your crocodile tears after the 2014 elections where we get to push through appointees YOUR side hates.

Are you expecting a presidential election in 2014?
How else do you name appointees?

2016, off by two years.