hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: Executive Action

  1. #1
    rojomojo915's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,642

    Executive Action

    So if you are in the US, you have definitely been hearing a lot about in the past two weeks with Boehner threatening to sue the Obama administration for using it and Obama saying he will use it to pass imigration reform as well as other items on his agenda.

    My 2 cents is that it does seem to completely ignore the systems we have in place in this country, but at the same time, when the party who controls congress is not willing to negotiate and is stone walling the minority, it keeps congress in this deadlock where nothing gets done. Id rather have the President pass legislation to try to improve the country than have congress sit there and do nothing with it for another 3 years (an article I read said immigration reform wouldn't be discussed again till after the next president is inaugurated in 2017 if is not discussed this summer).

    Yes, Obama and his administration also need to be willing to negotiate as well, but at from my point of view in most scenarios that have played out with Republicans taking a hard stance, it seems to be Boehner and his allies in congress that take the bigger hit with public opinion (budget crisis).

    So, whats everyone else's thought on this?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,115
    Listen to this, it's quite clear cut to be honest.


  3. #3
    Donor Aea's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    14,392
    Executive Orders are a long-standing power of the Executive Branch with the President at its head. There are restrictions on the power that are being respected by Obama.

    In terms of scale Obama has issued very few, in terms of scope that's arguable. Looking through the list they all seem rather innocuous and in line with past presidencies.

    They are currently the only way for Obama to actually implement policy against an entirely unresponsive Congress who will find anything, absolutely anything wrong with any behavior remotely linked to the President. The rational for this is up to the reader, but let me just interject that when 29% of Louisiana Republicans blame Obama for mis-handling Hurricane Katrina (an event that occurred three years before his presidency) I don't think any arguments against Obama are based on an logical or ideological difference.

    That said, Immigration Reform is the only real Executive Order yet that will have large, wide-scale consequences. Of course the Republican argument has been that most of Obama's Executive Orders have been similar in reach (and over-reach). I think this is a calculated risk taken by the President to call the GOP out on several things:

    - Extreme hyperbole over EOs
    - A threat to force the GOP (which effectively has full power to halt and prevent any legislation) to actually do their job and legislate on the Immigration Issue


    Oh, and the issue that Obama would issue EOs on? It's about handling an sudden influx of migrant children that the Border Patrol and Texas (which is primarily affected) can't cope with. The EO will likely improve the ability to deport them on a timely schedule while still abiding to the rule of law to ensure they have proper hearings (a law enacted by George W Bush). Additionally the order is requesting additional funding to ensure the border is more secure. This is both something that GOP has traditionally stood for and (surprise surprise) within the purview of the Executive Branch.


    The "upset" over this is an entirely fabricated outrage because the GOP will find anything and everything they can do to oppose the President, even when he's proposing action that GOP has long wanted. It should come as no surprise that many elements are already spreading half-truths and bold-faced lies about what the scope of this action will entail.

  4. #4
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    10,366
    Its certainly an interesting little pissing match. One thing that I was thinking with respects to them suing over AHA is technically they do not have legal status as both the House & Senate made a point to exempt themselves from the AHA.

    But in reality the who crux of this shit is that most republicans think that boenner is an impotent bitch who really hasn't accomplished anything. And given Cantor's loss in VA; they are trying to put on a tough face as to not lose any more ground.

    Edit to add this: Another really interesting thing is this is just a pointless fuck around kinda thing. Obama can issue what ever fucking order he wants about border security; but on the flip side Congress can just simply refuse to provide the funding for carrying out the order.
    Last edited by Straight Hustlin; July 1 2014 at 06:24:43 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Only one here to predict a win for God Emperor
    Posts
    12,463
    Is this about a free-for-all torture permission slip by the United States, or some other kind of executive action?
    Are you an engineer? -- Quack

  6. #6
    rojomojo915's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Rakshasa The Cat View Post
    Is this about a free-for-all torture permission slip by the United States, or some other kind of executive action?
    Some other kind for one example.

  7. #7
    Steph's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    9,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Rakshasa The Cat View Post
    Is this about a free-for-all torture permission slip by the United States, or some other kind of executive action?
    I thought troll posting wasn't allowed in this subforum.
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    Canadians are usually cooler.
    Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal

  8. #8
    Keorythe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Aea View Post
    That said, Immigration Reform is the only real Executive Order yet that will have large, wide-scale consequences. Of course the Republican argument has been that most of Obama's Executive Orders have been similar in reach (and over-reach).
    This does very little to address immigration and the impact of EO's current and in the past. The Obama administration has been using the Justice Dept. to be very selective in which laws it wants to enforce. This is compounded by the use of an EO which put incredible executive power behind the issue. But this sets a very scary precedent which can be used for just about any law he chooses. We've seen past Presidencies use EO's in the past but typically they've been well constrained and not abrogating (decide not to enforce) a law.

    This isn't the first time that the Obama administration has been taken to court over Executive overreach and past Presidents have also been down this road. The difference here is that Obama is outstripping them at a rapid pace. Clinton had 23 unanimous decisions against him, Bush 15, but Obama is already up to 20 and that doesn't address the non-unanimous decisions nor amicus the administration has submitted. He still has another 1 1/2 years to go...


    The "upset" over this is an entirely fabricated outrage because the GOP will find anything and everything they can do to oppose the President, even when he's proposing action that GOP has long wanted. It should come as no surprise that many elements are already spreading half-truths and bold-faced lies about what the scope of this action will entail.
    This paragraph is very ironic, specifically the last sentence. Many of the proposed action that the GOP "wanted" is similar in nature but far from the mark of what was being petitioned. Many in the US want immigration reform, just not in the way that the Obama administration is proposing. The same goes for other reforms or policies but it makes a nice sound byte to appear that the GOP are only out to oppose the President strictly to oppose him. His use of authority haven't exactly gone with with his fellow Democrats which have had to deal with the aftermath and been hammered for it. What's worse about this discussion is that you're only addressing immigration as if that is the whole of the lawsuit.

    The lawsuit is actually a good thing. It's not a full impeachment so it's not going to disrupt the government. It may solidify the rules for the use of EO's in the future and Executive authority surrounding abrogation of a law. I mean for gods sake, just the idea of the government saying, "we don't feel like enforcing this law right now" but we'll use it at our own discretion, ought to have both side up in arms. I mean just the cases concerning immigration alone isn't about "not pursuing the law" or "this is complex with many gray areas" but a flat out "we are ignoring the law because we can".

    Can you imagine if the administration just decided to have the Justice Dept. decline to pursue cases of discrimination?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Keorythe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aea View Post
    That said, Immigration Reform is the only real Executive Order yet that will have large, wide-scale consequences. Of course the Republican argument has been that most of Obama's Executive Orders have been similar in reach (and over-reach).
    This does very little to address immigration and the impact of EO's current and in the past. The Obama administration has been using the Justice Dept. to be very selective in which laws it wants to enforce. This is compounded by the use of an EO which put incredible executive power behind the issue. But this sets a very scary precedent which can be used for just about any law he chooses. We've seen past Presidencies use EO's in the past but typically they've been well constrained and not abrogating (decide not to enforce) a law.

    This isn't the first time that the Obama administration has been taken to court over Executive overreach and past Presidents have also been down this road. The difference here is that Obama is outstripping them at a rapid pace. Clinton had 23 unanimous decisions against him, Bush 15, but Obama is already up to 20 and that doesn't address the non-unanimous decisions nor amicus the administration has submitted. He still has another 1 1/2 years to go...


    The "upset" over this is an entirely fabricated outrage because the GOP will find anything and everything they can do to oppose the President, even when he's proposing action that GOP has long wanted. It should come as no surprise that many elements are already spreading half-truths and bold-faced lies about what the scope of this action will entail.
    This paragraph is very ironic, specifically the last sentence. Many of the proposed action that the GOP "wanted" is similar in nature but far from the mark of what was being petitioned. Many in the US want immigration reform, just not in the way that the Obama administration is proposing. The same goes for other reforms or policies but it makes a nice sound byte to appear that the GOP are only out to oppose the President strictly to oppose him. His use of authority haven't exactly gone with with his fellow Democrats which have had to deal with the aftermath and been hammered for it. What's worse about this discussion is that you're only addressing immigration as if that is the whole of the lawsuit.

    The lawsuit is actually a good thing. It's not a full impeachment so it's not going to disrupt the government. It may solidify the rules for the use of EO's in the future and Executive authority surrounding abrogation of a law. I mean for gods sake, just the idea of the government saying, "we don't feel like enforcing this law right now" but we'll use it at our own discretion, ought to have both side up in arms. I mean just the cases concerning immigration alone isn't about "not pursuing the law" or "this is complex with many gray areas" but a flat out "we are ignoring the law because we can".

    Can you imagine if the administration just decided to have the Justice Dept. decline to pursue cases of discrimination?
    Doesnt explain why republicans didn't even quip when bush was in office and why they are now opposing an immigration reform that passed with a bipartisan vote last year.

    You have one fucked up political system.

  10. #10
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    10,366
    Well to be fair the democrats also made a huge fuss over everything bush did.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Well to be fair the democrats also made a huge fuss over everything bush did.
    They didn't block every single thing he tried to do though.

    I don't really care for the label anyway, if you do that kind of political gaming you should be thrown out of your seat and have your right to vote revoked. You are not representing your constituents OR working for the betterment of the nation and as such you should be escorted to the door and thrown out no matter your affiliation.

  12. #12
    Movember 2011Donor Cue1*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Native Freshfood
    Posts
    6,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Baarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Well to be fair the democrats also made a huge fuss over everything bush did.
    They didn't block every single thing he tried to do though.
    Only because they couldn't. Since the Clinton administration, both sides have been entirely unwilling to agree upon anything. Even something an individual congressman might actually vote for, he's saying no, because his party says to say no.

  13. #13
    Donor Aea's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    14,392
    Did me and you experience the same Bush Presidency?

  14. #14

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Cue1* View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Baarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Well to be fair the democrats also made a huge fuss over everything bush did.
    They didn't block every single thing he tried to do though.
    Only because they couldn't. Since the Clinton administration, both sides have been entirely unwilling to agree upon anything. Even something an individual congressman might actually vote for, he's saying no, because his party says to say no.
    What do you base that belief on?

    Talking about dems blocking everything if they woulda had a congress majority just to be clear.

    As an external observer I see way, way more bad will coming from republicans, to the point of being caricatural really.

    edit:

    I do not back the stupid democrats, I just notice ALOT more republicans lying through their teeth and coming out with backward fucking mentalities.
    Last edited by Baarhyn; July 3 2014 at 04:11:24 AM.

  15. #15
    Movember 2011Donor Cue1*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Native Freshfood
    Posts
    6,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Baarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cue1* View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Baarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Well to be fair the democrats also made a huge fuss over everything bush did.
    They didn't block every single thing he tried to do though.
    Only because they couldn't. Since the Clinton administration, both sides have been entirely unwilling to agree upon anything. Even something an individual congressman might actually vote for, he's saying no, because his party says to say no.
    What do you base that belief on?

    Talking about dems blocking everything if they woulda had a congress majority just to be clear.

    As an external observer I see way, way more bad will coming from republicans, to the point of being caricatural really.

    edit:

    I do not back the stupid democrats, I just notice ALOT more republicans lying through their teeth and coming out with backward fucking mentalities.
    I'm not a Republican. I know a lot of people see me talking about guns, so they assume I'm a far right wing hick from the mountains with the idea of "mai rights", but among the entire political spectrum I'm pretty middle of the road. My point isn't that the Republicans are better, it's that the Democrats aren't either. They're both completely guilty of playing the political bullshit game without even giving a damn about what really happens to the country.

    As to evidence, I have no idea how to bring up voting records, but I had a thing for watching C-SPAN when I was in highschool, and I saw a lot of bills pass because there were enough Republicans to push it through, with every Democrat voting no. Anecdotal? Sure. But a single bill proves my point doesn't it?

  16. #16

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Cue1* View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Baarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cue1* View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Baarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Well to be fair the democrats also made a huge fuss over everything bush did.
    They didn't block every single thing he tried to do though.
    Only because they couldn't. Since the Clinton administration, both sides have been entirely unwilling to agree upon anything. Even something an individual congressman might actually vote for, he's saying no, because his party says to say no.
    What do you base that belief on?

    Talking about dems blocking everything if they woulda had a congress majority just to be clear.

    As an external observer I see way, way more bad will coming from republicans, to the point of being caricatural really.

    edit:

    I do not back the stupid democrats, I just notice ALOT more republicans lying through their teeth and coming out with backward fucking mentalities.
    I'm not a Republican. I know a lot of people see me talking about guns, so they assume I'm a far right wing hick from the mountains with the idea of "mai rights", but among the entire political spectrum I'm pretty middle of the road. My point isn't that the Republicans are better, it's that the Democrats aren't either. They're both completely guilty of playing the political bullshit game without even giving a damn about what really happens to the country.

    As to evidence, I have no idea how to bring up voting records, but I had a thing for watching C-SPAN when I was in highschool, and I saw a lot of bills pass because there were enough Republicans to push it through, with every Democrat voting no. Anecdotal? Sure. But a single bill proves my point doesn't it?
    that does make sense even if anecdotal.

    I'll give the "both parties are doing the bad things" point, but atleast democrats aren't trying to drag you back to the middle fucking ages I suppose. The republicans give such a stench of 50-80 year old well off white men with little education and big pension funds I get gag reflex just thinking about their talking point and i'm not even a citizen of the country they peddle their crap in.

    People bitch about politics alot here in Quebec and we have our fair share of stupid elected representative but the two "main" options on a provincial level aren't that far appart and except from slim historical trivial things religion isn't a talking point. On the federal level our conservatives are about where your democrats are on social policies with the liberals being a bit more centrist.

    I would be so bold as to say that the fucking bullshit you have wouldn't fly here and I am impressed by how much shit they can tell without EVER getting called on.

  17. #17
    Ophichius's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    Hedonistic Imperative
    Posts
    5,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Cue1* View Post
    I'm not a Republican. I know a lot of people see me talking about guns, so they assume I'm a far right wing hick from the mountains with the idea of "mai rights", but among the entire political spectrum I'm pretty middle of the road. My point isn't that the Republicans are better, it's that the Democrats aren't either. They're both completely guilty of playing the political bullshit game without even giving a damn about what really happens to the country.

    As to evidence, I have no idea how to bring up voting records, but I had a thing for watching C-SPAN when I was in highschool, and I saw a lot of bills pass because there were enough Republicans to push it through, with every Democrat voting no. Anecdotal? Sure. But a single bill proves my point doesn't it?
    I'm going to assume by "In highschool" you mean Bush's first term (2000-2004). I'm not going to dredge the entire database (There are over 900 votes in the year 2000 alone), but a random sampling of votes in 2000 (House Votes 602, 594, 586, 575, 549, 529, 46 and 2, along with Senate votes 293, 287, and 104. Picked by spinning my mousewheel and clicking at random.) shows only a single overwhelmingly obstructionist voting block, in Senate vote 104 (On the Amendment S.Amdt. 3148 to S. 2521 (Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2001)) by the Republicans, with 48 Republicans and 1 Democrat voting against, and 7 Republicans and 43 Democrats for. Within the random samples picked, there were no Democratic obstruction votes.

    Data sourced from govtrack.us.

    Furthermore, a single instance of Democrats universally voting against a bill would not be evidence of Democrats being as obstructionist as Republicans. To actually prove your point, you would need to prove a systematic, widespread, and long-term history of obstructive voting. Compare the relative frequency of senators and congressmen crossing the aisle in 2000 to the almost uniformly partisan voting of 2014. A uniformity catalyzed by the right's increasingly vitriolic us-or-them rhetoric.

    -O
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
    Failing the Voight-Kampff test, one tortoise at a time.

  18. #18
    Keorythe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Baarhyn View Post
    Can you imagine if the administration just decided to have the Justice Dept. decline to pursue cases of discrimination?
    Doesnt explain why republicans didn't even quip when bush was in office and why they are now opposing an immigration reform that passed with a bipartisan vote last year.

    You have one fucked up political system.[/QUOTE]

    The 2013 you're talking about was passed in the Senate but not the House. It's showing that 14 Republicans crossed the isle on that one. Passing something through the Senate isn't a big deal as it's Democrat controlled and they pretty much rubber stamp most things that pass through there. The House (Congress) is where the real horse trading happens and where a bill will have a hard fight. The bill failed in the House because there were no guarantees of border security before the other measures took place. We saw that kind of double speak in past immigration bills where the security part floundered or was never full realized but the social parts went full bore. Then there was the whole "path to citizenship" bit which was pretty much an amnesty ploy. Rather than offer resident status (green card) the Democrats pushed for full citizenship. I wonder why.....?

    Let's not forget the 2007 Immigration bill which was supposed to pass with few bumps as it was supported by G.W. Bush and the Republicans....until the details were made public and there was so much of a backlash that many Congressmen changed their stance and voted against it. That was also one of the few examples of citizens influencing national policy as opposed to the apathetic situation we have today.

    As an external observer I see way, way more bad will coming from republicans, to the point of being caricatural really.
    As an outside observer, you're falling for the typical propaganda of trying to make it seem that way. The GOP has been opposing bills that are not in their interests and opposed to whatever stance they have. That's not obstructionist, that's doing what I want them to do and why I voted for them. And one of the sneakiest ploys they've been using is to take a piece of legislation that had bipartisan support in the past, try rework it, and try to present it as the same thing while having elements that the GOP will naturally oppose. They pulled the same thing in 2006 when they attached troop withdraw conditions to a veterans pay increase which Bush and the GOP wanted. It passed both Houses (which the democrats controlled) where it was then vetoed by Bush himself. The media and played up the obstructionist angle despite the vow to veto any such legislation.

    The biggest problem that the current administration runs into is the size and scope of the bill it's trying to pass. Rather than a series of smaller bills which would be easier to negotiate, he almost showboats with large grandiose bill after bill. The jobs bill he wanted to pass in 2011 probably would have passed if he had cut out half of the proposals he was making and stuck to actual jobs and welfare. Instead it was packed with things like a controversial Nation Infrastructure Bank and an expensive nationwide wireless network. But it required raising taxes and throwing out a lot of welfare reform from the past.

    As you go down the list you also notice most of the major bills that are blocked by "obstructionists" pretty much suck from a conservative point of view.

    -S-CHIP reauthorization: Democrats attempted to added illegal immigrants to the list
    -Stimulus bill (TARP II): Huge expenditure which had been tried on a smaller scale by Bush with minimal results. Criticized for same reasons as Bush stimulus
    -Health Care and later Obamacare: lol, need more than one sentence to describe this cluster
    -Dodd-Frank (wall street reform): massive change to regulatory practices on federal and State levels. Later challenged in court by a dozen organizations and 13 States. Ironically criticized by Elizabeth Warren (not Sen. at that time) for those changes.
    The list keeps going on and yet there are few bills that would have had little GOP support even if McCain had been in office.

    Maybe this is a form of reciprocity from the 2009-2011 when the Democrats owned both the Senate and House enough that they could railroad whatever they wanted (Dems also owned the House but were tied in the Senate in 2007-2009). Something they did frequently. They've attempted it again in the subsequent years and their party train has been blocked over and over. Now they claim obstructionism when they don't get what they want. So now the President is using his Executive Order power more frequently as a substitute but is starting to hit walls as he tests the limits of that privilege.

  19. #19
    Steph's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    9,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Keorythe View Post
    ...Then there was the whole "path to citizenship" bit which was pretty much an amnesty ploy. Rather than offer resident status (green card) the Democrats pushed for full citizenship. I wonder why.....?
    Don't just trail off like that. Please enlighten us as to what anti-American liberal agenda is at work here.
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    Canadians are usually cooler.
    Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal

  20. #20

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Keorythe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Baarhyn View Post
    Can you imagine if the administration just decided to have the Justice Dept. decline to pursue cases of discrimination?
    Doesnt explain why republicans didn't even quip when bush was in office and why they are now opposing an immigration reform that passed with a bipartisan vote last year.

    You have one fucked up political system.

    The 2013 you're talking about was passed in the Senate but not the House. It's showing that 14 Republicans crossed the isle on that one. Passing something through the Senate isn't a big deal as it's Democrat controlled and they pretty much rubber stamp most things that pass through there. The House (Congress) is where the real horse trading happens and where a bill will have a hard fight. The bill failed in the House because there were no guarantees of border security before the other measures took place. We saw that kind of double speak in past immigration bills where the security part floundered or was never full realized but the social parts went full bore. Then there was the whole "path to citizenship" bit which was pretty much an amnesty ploy. Rather than offer resident status (green card) the Democrats pushed for full citizenship. I wonder why.....?

    Let's not forget the 2007 Immigration bill which was supposed to pass with few bumps as it was supported by G.W. Bush and the Republicans....until the details were made public and there was so much of a backlash that many Congressmen changed their stance and voted against it. That was also one of the few examples of citizens influencing national policy as opposed to the apathetic situation we have today.

    As an external observer I see way, way more bad will coming from republicans, to the point of being caricatural really.
    As an outside observer, you're falling for the typical propaganda of trying to make it seem that way. The GOP has been opposing bills that are not in their interests and opposed to whatever stance they have. That's not obstructionist, that's doing what I want them to do and why I voted for them. And one of the sneakiest ploys they've been using is to take a piece of legislation that had bipartisan support in the past, try rework it, and try to present it as the same thing while having elements that the GOP will naturally oppose. They pulled the same thing in 2006 when they attached troop withdraw conditions to a veterans pay increase which Bush and the GOP wanted. It passed both Houses (which the democrats controlled) where it was then vetoed by Bush himself. The media and played up the obstructionist angle despite the vow to veto any such legislation.

    The biggest problem that the current administration runs into is the size and scope of the bill it's trying to pass. Rather than a series of smaller bills which would be easier to negotiate, he almost showboats with large grandiose bill after bill. The jobs bill he wanted to pass in 2011 probably would have passed if he had cut out half of the proposals he was making and stuck to actual jobs and welfare. Instead it was packed with things like a controversial Nation Infrastructure Bank and an expensive nationwide wireless network. But it required raising taxes and throwing out a lot of welfare reform from the past.

    As you go down the list you also notice most of the major bills that are blocked by "obstructionists" pretty much suck from a conservative point of view.

    -S-CHIP reauthorization: Democrats attempted to added illegal immigrants to the list
    -Stimulus bill (TARP II): Huge expenditure which had been tried on a smaller scale by Bush with minimal results. Criticized for same reasons as Bush stimulus
    -Health Care and later Obamacare: lol, need more than one sentence to describe this cluster
    -Dodd-Frank (wall street reform): massive change to regulatory practices on federal and State levels. Later challenged in court by a dozen organizations and 13 States. Ironically criticized by Elizabeth Warren (not Sen. at that time) for those changes.
    The list keeps going on and yet there are few bills that would have had little GOP support even if McCain had been in office.

    Maybe this is a form of reciprocity from the 2009-2011 when the Democrats owned both the Senate and House enough that they could railroad whatever they wanted (Dems also owned the House but were tied in the Senate in 2007-2009). Something they did frequently. They've attempted it again in the subsequent years and their party train has been blocked over and over. Now they claim obstructionism when they don't get what they want. So now the President is using his Executive Order power more frequently as a substitute but is starting to hit walls as he tests the limits of that privilege.
    I was not talking about bills there mate, I was talking about the whole speech.

    You can't only take the "real" conservative values without the rest of the bullshit they spew. People saying Irak was a success until Obama pulled out, the anti-gay anti-woman anti-everything but old white farts stance, Bible thumping anti-stem cell research anti-income equality Retard-o guns for everyone us-versus-them mentality is fucking sickening.

    Shit, look at fox news on a good day and tell me that what they are saying make any logical sense.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •