How many would like Obama to ignore Congress?

[rightwinger]

Here's an idea....how about YOU keeping up. YOUR boy changed the cloture rule, remember?

Get your act together if you are going to argue about your Nazi counterparts.


Senate Dems weaken GOP power with major filibuster rule change | Fox News

Reid only went part way. He eliminated cloture for judicial appointments only

Why won't you answer the question?

Will you support Republicans dropping their requirement for 60 votes if Reid sends the Repulican bills for a vote?

Are you afraid to answer?

I'm not afraid to answer anything. Here are the facts. Anytime a bill comes to that scum bag Reid - it seldom comes to the floor for a vote. Reid was instructed by Barry, at the beginning of the boy king's reign to hold all legislation and he's done that. So when you are throwing a fit that "nothing gets done", look no farther than YOUR nazi party.

if you could tell me right now that Reid would begin bringing the hundreds of bills that are sitting on that assholes desk to the floor, I would be all in on the republicans voting, but that's bullshit because the gutter trash Reid is never going to do that. You know that and I know that.

November will mark the end of Reid. The man who came to DC with a net worth of 85 thousand and will leave with a net Worth of 23 MILLION will be history - and he will not be regarded well in years to come.

OK now we are talking

So Reid can bring up EVERY Republican bill for an up or down vote and Republicans will allow EVERY Democratic bill to do the same?

I can guarantee Reid will jump at he chance since Democrats have 55 votes for their bills and Republicans only have 45

Still want to make the deal?

 

[driveby]

Actually, it involved a lot of....I'll vote for your bill if you will vote for mine across party lines

Until we got the current " i won, get over it " chimp in the White House........

Sorry

Not going to continue debating a racist

Waaahhhhhh!!!

Typical liberal, when getting your ass handed to you, cry out "racism" !!

So am I racist against Obama's black half or white half ? ....

Was it racist when called George Bush a chimp as well? ....

 

[Jughead]

How many would like Obama to ignore Congress?

The answer is simple. How many registered Democrats are there? They didn't complain when he bypassed congress and authorized the release of 5 top level Taliban prisoners.

 

[bripat9643]

All Obama needs to do is ignore Congress. It's not like they are going to do anything

Then just go about his job as chief executive and accomplish what he can without them

You mean, all he has to do is ignore the Constitution, don't you?

 

[Dad2three]

Here's an idea....how about YOU keeping up. YOUR boy changed the cloture rule, remember?

Get your act together if you are going to argue about your Nazi counterparts.


Senate Dems weaken GOP power with major filibuster rule change | Fox News

Reid only went part way. He eliminated cloture for judicial appointments only

Why won't you answer the question?

Will you support Republicans dropping their requirement for 60 votes if Reid sends the Repulican bills for a vote?

Are you afraid to answer?

I'm not afraid to answer anything. Here are the facts. Anytime a bill comes to that scum bag Reid - it seldom comes to the floor for a vote. Reid was instructed by Barry, at the beginning of the boy king's reign to hold all legislation and he's done that. So when you are throwing a fit that "nothing gets done", look no farther than YOUR nazi party.

if you could tell me right now that Reid would begin bringing the hundreds of bills that are sitting on that assholes desk to the floor, I would be all in on the republicans voting, but that's bullshit because the gutter trash Reid is never going to do that. You know that and I know that.

November will mark the end of Reid. The man who came to DC with a net worth of 85 thousand and will leave with a net Worth of 23 MILLION will be history - and he will not be regarded well in years to come.

"November will mark the end of Reid. The man who came to DC with a net worth of 85 thousand and will leave with a net Worth of 23 MILLION will be history - and he will not be regarded well in years to come."



lol


There's a popular misconception that Harry Reid has spent his entire life on the taxpayer's dole, so it would be impossible for him to become rich on his own.

The Senate majority leader has been a full-time officeholder since he was first elected to the House in 1982, but many forget he practiced law for 18 years before that. He passed the bar at the end of 1964 and was in private practice even when he held other part-time jobs, including lieutenant governor and chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission



....Even before he went to Congress, Reid bought real estate and held onto it. One example: In 1979 he and law partner Bruce Alverson bought a building at 428 S. Fourth St. in Las Vegas for $89,500. In 2000, it sold for $716,000.


Way back in 1982, the year he was elected to the House, Reid filed a report saying his net worth was between $1 million and $1.5 million "or more."

The conclusion: Reid's net worth was about $5.4 million in 1995 and by 2006 had dropped to about $3.3 million. The reason: Reid sold much of his land to put his five children through college.






It gets complicated adding up what politicians are worth | Las Vegas Review-Journal

 

[Dad2three]

How many would like Obama to ignore Congress?

The answer is simple. How many registered Democrats are there? They didn't complain when he bypassed congress and authorized the release of 5 top level Taliban prisoners.

BYPASSED CONGRESS? Oh right, as IS HIS RIGHT AS CIC AND IT WAS HIS DUTY!


June 19, 2007

President Bush has asserted that he is not necessarily bound by the bills he signs into law, and yesterday a congressional study found multiple examples in which the administration has not complied with the requirements of the new statutes.



For the first time, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office -- Congress's investigative arm -- tried to ascertain whether the administration has made good on such declarations of presidential power. In appropriations acts for fiscal 2006, GAO investigators found 160 separate provisions that Bush had objected to in signing statements. They then chose 19 to follow.

Of those 19 provisions, six -- nearly a third -- were not carried out according to law.

'Signing Statements' Study Finds Administration Has Ignored Laws


July 24, 2006

The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.

In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.

These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said.

In signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws, Mr. Bush reserved the right to disregard them

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html?_r=0

 

[Dad2three]

All Obama needs to do is ignore Congress. It's not like they are going to do anything

Then just go about his job as chief executive and accomplish what he can without them

You mean, all he has to do is ignore the Constitution, don't you?

Weird, you'd think with a GOP House and conservative SCOTUS, someone would do something about that right? lol

 

[gtarguy921]

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...

Awww look ... another cult-tard wants to play gotcha politics. Gee that's impressive!

I'd like to see pseudopatriotic right wing windbags pull their heads out of Rush's ass and deal with reality.

Fat chance.

 

[westwall]

Wow...you are really good at telling others what they believe

I think it is part of a strawman argument

Those are YOUR words RW. I added NOTHING to them. How is my argument a "strawman"? I asked a simple question. A few figured out what the question really meant, JoeB clearly doesn't care, he is what he is and a few tried to couch their approval in nice words, but ultimately those who are of a progressive mind felt that some form of dictatorship was acceptable. Not desirable perhaps...but acceptable.

You added the term "dictatorship" Capt Hyperbole

What do you call it when a "strongman" ignores the constitutionally elected representatives of the People, and instead rules by fiat?

 

[westwall]

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...

Awww look ... another cult-tard wants to play gotcha politics. Gee that's impressive!

I'd like to see pseudopatriotic right wing windbags pull their heads out of Rush's ass and deal with reality.

Fat chance.

I'm a liberal Democrat. Not a progressive. There's a difference. A HUUUUUGE difference.

 

[Dad2three]

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...

Awww look ... another cult-tard wants to play gotcha politics. Gee that's impressive!

I'd like to see pseudopatriotic right wing windbags pull their heads out of Rush's ass and deal with reality.

Fat chance.

I'm a liberal Democrat. Not a progressive. There's a difference. A HUUUUUGE difference.

Sure YOU are liar

""We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider, "

THE ACTUAL QUOTE



On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.


Prof. Stephen Schneider,



With the full quote, it’s easy to see that Dr Schneider was attacking, not supporting, the “sound-bite system”.

The Schneider Quote | ClimateSight

 

[Dad2three]

Those are YOUR words RW. I added NOTHING to them. How is my argument a "strawman"? I asked a simple question. A few figured out what the question really meant, JoeB clearly doesn't care, he is what he is and a few tried to couch their approval in nice words, but ultimately those who are of a progressive mind felt that some form of dictatorship was acceptable. Not desirable perhaps...but acceptable.

You added the term "dictatorship" Capt Hyperbole

What do you call it when a "strongman" ignores the constitutionally elected representatives of the People, and instead rules by fiat?

June 19, 2007

President Bush has asserted that he is not necessarily bound by the bills he signs into law, and yesterday a congressional study found multiple examples in which the administration has not complied with the requirements of the new statutes.



For the first time, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office -- Congress's investigative arm -- tried to ascertain whether the administration has made good on such declarations of presidential power. In appropriations acts for fiscal 2006, GAO investigators found 160 separate provisions that Bush had objected to in signing statements. They then chose 19 to follow.

Of those 19 provisions, six -- nearly a third -- were not carried out according to law.

'Signing Statements' Study Finds Administration Has Ignored Laws



July 24, 2006

The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.

In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.

These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said.

In signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws, Mr. Bush reserved the right to disregard them

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno.....................why is it that Obama has used a lot less of his executive powers, and a lot less of his signing statements than any other President, yet he's being accused of being an emperor, tyrant or dictator?

Jr. did a lot worse.

 

[MaxGrit]

Yanno.....................why is it that Obama has used a lot less of his executive powers, and a lot less of his signing statements than any other President, yet he's being accused of being an emperor, tyrant or dictator?

Jr. did a lot worse.

It's about contents of the EO.

 

[westwall]

Awww look ... another cult-tard wants to play gotcha politics. Gee that's impressive!

I'd like to see pseudopatriotic right wing windbags pull their heads out of Rush's ass and deal with reality.

Fat chance.

I'm a liberal Democrat. Not a progressive. There's a difference. A HUUUUUGE difference.

Sure YOU are liar

""We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider, "

THE ACTUAL QUOTE



On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.


Prof. Stephen Schneider,



With the full quote, it’s easy to see that Dr Schneider was attacking, not supporting, the “sound-bite system”.

The Schneider Quote | ClimateSight

Sure he was. And I never lie. I don't need to. You clowns are hoist on your own petard so frequently there's absolutely no need.

 

[westwall]

You added the term "dictatorship" Capt Hyperbole

What do you call it when a "strongman" ignores the constitutionally elected representatives of the People, and instead rules by fiat?

June 19, 2007

President Bush has asserted that he is not necessarily bound by the bills he signs into law, and yesterday a congressional study found multiple examples in which the administration has not complied with the requirements of the new statutes.



For the first time, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office -- Congress's investigative arm -- tried to ascertain whether the administration has made good on such declarations of presidential power. In appropriations acts for fiscal 2006, GAO investigators found 160 separate provisions that Bush had objected to in signing statements. They then chose 19 to follow.

Of those 19 provisions, six -- nearly a third -- were not carried out according to law.

'Signing Statements' Study Finds Administration Has Ignored Laws



July 24, 2006

The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.

In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.

These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said.

In signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws, Mr. Bush reserved the right to disregard them

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html

Yes indeed. And I fought against him then too. So why don't you fight against the same BS when it's a progressive doing it? I dare you to find any quote of mine that supported Bush. His policies were abhorrent to the Constitution and I voted for Obama the first time because I knew that McCain would just be more of the same.

Sadly, Obama has been an even worse disaster....unlike you though I am smart enough, and care enough about the country to realize it.

 

[Levy]

I would like him to do what's right.

 

[westwall]

Yanno.....................why is it that Obama has used a lot less of his executive powers, and a lot less of his signing statements than any other President, yet he's being accused of being an emperor, tyrant or dictator?

Jr. did a lot worse.

Probably because of what he's doing WITH them. Releasing the 5 terrorists as an example. He bypassed Congress. That is against the law. Yet, you allow it because he's "your guy".

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno.....................why is it that Obama has used a lot less of his executive powers, and a lot less of his signing statements than any other President, yet he's being accused of being an emperor, tyrant or dictator?

Jr. did a lot worse.

Probably because of what he's doing WITH them. Releasing the 5 terrorists as an example. He bypassed Congress. That is against the law. Yet, you allow it because he's "your guy".

Actually, he didn't "release" 5 terrorists, he traded a few (meaning 5) for the life of 1 military member.

We don't leave a man (or woman) behind. We do all we can to get them back.

It's written into the laws that military members are supposed to follow.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yanno.....................why is it that Obama has used a lot less of his executive powers, and a lot less of his signing statements than any other President, yet he's being accused of being an emperor, tyrant or dictator?

Jr. did a lot worse.

Probably because of what he's doing WITH them. Releasing the 5 terrorists as an example. He bypassed Congress. That is against the law. Yet, you allow it because he's "your guy".

Five terrorists? What crimes did each of them commit? Thought crimes? Wrong place, wrong time?

You slipped that word in there.....as though it is a confirmed fact that those five guys are nasty terrorists. Let's have a factual account of their crimes. You know...the ones they were tried and convicted of.