Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

ObamaCare NOT working as planned

pjstroh
pjstroh
Jul 9, 2014
12:55pm
Block User
It doesnt matter if Obama initiated fewer or 10x more executive orders than any president. Executive orders are not illegal. It is well within the right of any president to issue as many of them as he wants. That comes with winning elections.

The birthers conspiracy theories have worn thin so now they are inventing their own set of pretend Constitutional Laws they can say the president is in violation of....and the Speaker can pretend-sue the president for breaking them. And our resident conservatives can pretend to be outraged by it all. Seems to be working well. I just hope their blood pressure stays at healthy levels. It'd be a shame if they had a stroke over pretend complaints
pjstroh
pjstroh
Jul 9, 2014
12:56pm
Block User

...dup post...
forkushV
forkushV
Jul 9, 2014
1:15pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
"The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

That should be clear enough even for the most hardened partisan...
It's clear to me. He was saying he would limit executive orders and signing statements. And that's EXACTLY what he's done, isn't it?

Incidentally, when Bush issued an executive order that I objected too, most of the folks who agreed with me would talk about what a lousy president we had. But now when Obama issues one of his FEW executive orders, his opposition irrationally talks about impeachment and lawsuits.

We're much better people than they are.
Don
Don
Jul 9, 2014
8:28pm
Block User


alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Jul 9, 2014
11:10pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
"The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

That should be clear enough even for the most hardened partisan...
It's clear to me. He was saying he would limit executive orders and signing statements. And that's EXACTLY what he's done, isn't it?

Ok..so when President Obama brags that he has a pen and he has a phone and he's going to get his agenda done with or without congress you don't see that as backtracking on his Executive Order Philosophy and intentionally going around congress?

You think he's intending to get a part time job at Dominos to use that Pen and Phone?

alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Jul 9, 2014
11:18pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
It doesnt matter if Obama initiated fewer or 10x more executive orders than any president. Executive orders are not illegal. It is well within the right of any president to issue as many of them as he wants. That comes with winning elections.

The birthers conspiracy theories have worn thin so now they are inventing their own set of pretend Constitutional Laws they can say the president is in violation of....and the Speaker can pretend-sue the president for breaking them. And our resident conservatives can pretend to be outraged by it all. Seems to be working well. I just hope their blood pressure stays at healthy levels. It'd be a shame if they had a stroke over pretend complaints


Of course executive overreach doesn't matter....until it matters. I don't care one way or the other. All I did was point out how the words of Candidate Obama and Current President Obama are so different on this subject. So then the wacky left wing liberal panderers call me an 'Obama Hater'. I'm afraid you guys are the ones that are going to stroke out if I keep doing crazy stuff like, you know, quoting Barrack Obama.

alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Jul 9, 2014
11:40pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Incidentally, when Bush issued an executive order that I objected too, most of the folks who agreed with me would talk about what a lousy president we had. But now when Obama issues one of his FEW executive orders, his opposition irrationally talks about impeachment and lawsuits.

Oh no. Lots of people are now talking about 'what a lousy president we have'.

https://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056


pjstroh
pjstroh
Jul 10, 2014
12:09am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
It doesnt matter if Obama initiated fewer or 10x more executive orders than any president. Executive orders are not illegal. It is well within the right of any president to issue as many of them as he wants. That comes with winning elections.

The birthers conspiracy theories have worn thin so now they are inventing their own set of pretend Constitutional Laws they can say the president is in violation of....and the Speaker can pretend-sue the president for breaking them. And our resident conservatives can pretend to be outraged by it all. Seems to be working well. I just hope their blood pressure stays at healthy levels. It'd be a shame if they had a stroke over pretend complaints


Of course executive overreach doesn't matter....until it matters. I don't care one way or the other. All I did was point out how the words of Candidate Obama and Current President Obama are so different on this subject. So then the wacky left wing liberal panderers call me an 'Obama Hater'. I'm afraid you guys are the ones that are going to stroke out if I keep doing crazy stuff like, you know, quoting Barrack Obama.


My post was not a response to anything you posted.

But you bring up overreach.

Legitimate executive overreach is easily corrected by Constitutional checks and balances...and more importantly by elections. Sour grapes are addressed with phony law suits, groundless threats of impeachment, and endless Congressional hearings based on conspiracy theories.
alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Jul 10, 2014
12:16am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
It doesnt matter if Obama initiated fewer or 10x more executive orders than any president. Executive orders are not illegal. It is well within the right of any president to issue as many of them as he wants. That comes with winning elections.

The birthers conspiracy theories have worn thin so now they are inventing their own set of pretend Constitutional Laws they can say the president is in violation of....and the Speaker can pretend-sue the president for breaking them. And our resident conservatives can pretend to be outraged by it all. Seems to be working well. I just hope their blood pressure stays at healthy levels. It'd be a shame if they had a stroke over pretend complaints


Of course executive overreach doesn't matter....until it matters. I don't care one way or the other. All I did was point out how the words of Candidate Obama and Current President Obama are so different on this subject. So then the wacky left wing liberal panderers call me an 'Obama Hater'. I'm afraid you guys are the ones that are going to stroke out if I keep doing crazy stuff like, you know, quoting Barrack Obama.


My post was not a response to anything you posted.

But you bring up overreach.

Legitimate executive overreach is easily corrected by Constitutional checks and balances...

Please explain how exactly constitutional checks and balances easily corrects overreach. Like how does that really happen. Does Congress say 'Don't do that'? How? Does the Judicial Branch step in? How does that work? What's the process for this?

alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Jul 10, 2014
12:22am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Sour grapes are addressed with phony law suits, groundless threats of impeachment, and endless Congressional hearings based on conspiracy theories.

Where was PJ when on June 10 2008, The Democrat Controlled House voted 251 to 166 to refer an impeachment resolution against George W. Bush to the Judiciary Committee?

Does he just object to talk of impeachment against 'His' guy or does he think Bush should have been impeached like all those wacky Democrats that used to be in the House of Representatives?...or was it just 'Sour Grapes'.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now