Presidential Address

[Imran Siddiqui]

So, Obama says out loud that he's going to use his Executive Order power to its limit to get stuff done if Congress won't do stuff... so at the very least some minor thing can be done (such as government contractors' minimum wage going up since he can't change the minimum wage law itself). Why is this a big deal again? He's basically saying outloud what Presidents have been doing for the last 20 years. GW Bush was perfectly fine with EO's to get around Congress, for instance.

[Guynemer]

Because OBAMA IS A KENYAN MUSLIM SOCIAL FASCIST COMMUNIST

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA

[MrFun]

So, Obama says out loud that he's going to use his Executive Order power to its limit to get stuff done if Congress won't do stuff... so at the very least some minor thing can be done (such as government contractors' minimum wage going up since he can't change the minimum wage law itself). Why is this a big deal again? He's basically saying outloud what Presidents have been doing for the last 20 years. GW Bush was perfectly fine with EO's to get around Congress, for instance.

because he's black

[Sava]

Hey MrFun

[dannubis]

Can you imagine the hissy fit conservatives would have had if the Democrats had been smart enough to filibuster the Iraq War?

The amount of forehead veins that would have exploded ...

[dannubis]

I have no interest in being 'explained' to by someone who cannot spell dysfunctional.

Zing...

[Kidlicious]

because he's black

Have some self-respect. You're better than that.

[rah]

So, Obama says out loud that he's going to use his Executive Order power to its limit to get stuff done if Congress won't do stuff... so at the very least some minor thing can be done (such as government contractors' minimum wage going up since he can't change the minimum wage law itself). Why is this a big deal again? He's basically saying outloud what Presidents have been doing for the last 20 years. GW Bush was perfectly fine with EO's to get around Congress, for instance.

Which Obama undid many of once he took office. And the chance the next president will do the same to his. That's the problem with this type of thinking. But as everyone has said, this is not the first time.

[PLATO]

Well yeah, that's the point. The system was constructed by people who genuinely believed that political factions would compromise and put country before party. If that stops happening then the system stops working properly.

No. It works as intended. The idea was that if an idea was not good enough to have broad support then the government needed to stay out of it. That is still my idea.

I find it difficult to understand why the government not churnning out hundreds of new laws every year is a bad thing. If public opinion is overwhelmingly for something then every Congrressman will jump on the nearest talk show to say how he/she was always in favor of that idea and it will go through Congress like a hot knife going through butter.

It is the ideas that have strong divisions among the people that cause "obstructionism". And that, U.S. Civics students, is by design...not accident.

[Patroklos]

So, Obama says out loud that he's going to use his Executive Order power to its limit to get stuff done if Congress won't do stuff... so at the very least some minor thing can be done (such as government contractors' minimum wage going up since he can't change the minimum wage law itself). Why is this a big deal again? He's basically saying outloud what Presidents have been doing for the last 20 years. GW Bush was perfectly fine with EO's to get around Congress, for instance.

In and of itself its not really a problem. The issue is Obama does not exist in a vacuum, he exists in a political reality where he and his Democratic cronies spent eight years decrying every action of the executive as an abuse of p[wer. actions that very often did have the official approval of Congress. They were literally burning effigies of Bush in the streets and decapitating his likeness at Democratic conventions (just imagine the reactions if Republicans did the same today) over this sort of go it alone stuff.

There is really no arguing that Obama has not been the most authoritative, secretive and imperial president in living memory. On top of that the shear contempt he has for any one or group who disagrees with him is also unheard of in living memory (given Gate's revelation I am not sure how much of this originates from Obama himself, but he is responsible for his appointees). I will give you a bit of slack on the filibuster thing but that is nearly irrelevant to his legislative woes outside nominations because ANOTHER PARTY THAT DISAGREES WITH HIM HOLDS THE HOUSE. Every time someone *****es about his legislative packages failing because a democratically elected legislature votes against him they are simply frustrated with democracy. That's fine IF you accept the validity of that democratic process even if it is frustrating you. What we are seeing now is contempt for democracy because people DARED express opinions contrary to theirs, DARED to vote for a representative that in turn votes as they want. Oddly enough those same people seem to have no problem with Obama when he threatens to veto legislation he doesn't like that has or would have passed with two houses of Congress behind it.

Obama isn't a king. If his message and position is unable to garner the support through a proven and stable democratic process the problem is not with the process, its with the message or position. If he can't get the legislators to change their mind or just change who those legislators are after three elections he and his party can influence then again the problem is with his message or position.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In and of itself its not really a problem. The issue is Obama does not exist in a vacuum, he exists in a political reality where he and his Democratic cronies spent eight years decrying every action of the executive as an abuse of p[wer.

They are politicians?! Gasp!

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm waiting, Mobius

You gave me literally 10 minutes to respond and then dismissed me. What?



Do I really need to list the litany of court cases in Britain, France, Switzerland, etc. in which individuals were convicted for what was determined to be 'hate speech'?

Could the Westboro Baptist Church legally protest in most European countries?

Flag desecration is illegal in:
Austria (under 248 Strafgesetzbuch)
Croatia (NN 110/97 article 151)
France (Article 43-5-1)
Germany (90a StGB)
Portugal (article 332)
Romania (article 236)
Switzerland (SR/RS 311.0, art. 270)

Freedom of speech is legal in the USA.



Regardless of anti-immigration sentiment among a minority of Americans (and for British to deride Americans for anti-immigration sentiment is the best case of a kettle calling the pot black!), American immigration law is more pro-immigration than the laws in most European countries.

Over 1 million aliens receive Legal Permanent Resident status per year in the US (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...pr_fr_2008.pdf).

How many European countries restrict immigrants to skilled workers and students only?

Look at this survey of EU countries and their immigration policies regarding 'unskilled and low-skilled workers' (ULSW): http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/pdf/publica...l_handbook.pdf












Our naturalization process requires 5 years of residency, the same as Britain and France, and less than Portugal (6 years), Norway (7 years), Germany (8 years), Denmark (9 years), Italy (10 years), and Switzerland (10 years).




Late-term abortions are illegal in most European countries but legal in the US.




Did you know the UK's School Standards and Framework Act 1998 mandates collective Christian worship at state schools? (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/31/schedule/20)

France bans the wearing of religious items and headscarves.

[pchang]

In and of itself its not really a problem. The issue is Obama does not exist in a vacuum, he exists in a political reality where he and his Democratic cronies spent eight years decrying every action of the executive as an abuse of p[wer. actions that very often did have the official approval of Congress. They were literally burning effigies of Bush in the streets and decapitating his likeness at Democratic conventions (just imagine the reactions if Republicans did the same today) over this sort of go it alone stuff.

There is really no arguing that Obama has not been the most authoritative, secretive and imperial president in living memory. On top of that the shear contempt he has for any one or group who disagrees with him is also unheard of in living memory (given Gate's revelation I am not sure how much of this originates from Obama himself, but he is responsible for his appointees). I will give you a bit of slack on the filibuster thing but that is nearly irrelevant to his legislative woes outside nominations because ANOTHER PARTY THAT DISAGREES WITH HIM HOLDS THE HOUSE. Every time someone *****es about his legislative packages failing because a democratically elected legislature votes against him they are simply frustrated with democracy. That's fine IF you accept the validity of that democratic process even if it is frustrating you. What we are seeing now is contempt for democracy because people DARED express opinions contrary to theirs, DARED to vote for a representative that in turn votes as they want. Oddly enough those same people seem to have no problem with Obama when he threatens to veto legislation he doesn't like that has or would have passed with two houses of Congress behind it.

Obama isn't a king. If his message and position is unable to garner the support through a proven and stable democratic process the problem is not with the process, its with the message or position. If he can't get the legislators to change their mind or just change who those legislators are after three elections he and his party can influence then again the problem is with his message or position.

Seriously????? Nixon.

[DinoDoc]

Seriously????? Nixon.

Is that meant to be a defense?

[pchang]

No. Proper perspective.