Bullypulpit - executive orders

[jimnyc]

You went a tad nutso about executive orders while Bush was in office. Why so quite for the past 7 years? Why no answers when we ask you about this? What is your current take on executive orders, are they now ok suddenly?

[NightTrain]

I'm pretty sure Bully Boy will 'miss' this thread.

[Solo]

You went a tad nutso about executive orders while Bush was in office. Why so quite for the past 7 years? Why no answers when we ask you about this? What is your current take on executive orders, are they now ok suddenly?


Exective orders are out of control and have been.

[gabosaurus]

Can you guess who used the power of "executive orders" more than any other president?
It was Reagan.

Obama has actually issued fewer executive orders than GW Bush by a long shot.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

[Kathianne]

Can you guess who used the power of "executive orders" more than any other president?
It was Reagan.

Obama has actually issued fewer executive orders than GW Bush by a long shot.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

Huh? You looking at the chart you posted link to?

[jimnyc]

The point isn't totals anyway, for folks that have the inability to address the topic (retards). The point is hypocrisy. If you have an issue with executive orders, don't suddenly find them A-ok when a new president sits in the oval office. And in addition to the totals, it's WHAT they were used for.

Bully's own famous words - care to search them out? :) Kinda odd words these days!!!

Again, the President cannot choose which laws or provisions thereof he will or will not enforce.

[Kathianne]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/


<section id="module-position-OUEhAwxrxaw" class="storytopbar-bucket story-headline-module" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;">Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'</section><section id="module-position-OUEhAwyJGfM" class="storytopbar-bucket priority-asset-module" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;"></section>http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/dd8b1baf67130a1edc52e1868cb7f1ece5f42a54/r=26&c=26x26/local/-/media/USATODAY/staff/images/writer_congress-Korte_Greggory.png Gregory Korte (http://www.usatoday.com/staff/2055/gregory-korte/), USA TODAY1:16 p.m. EST December 17, 2014


By issuing his directives as "memoranda" rather than executive orders, Obama has downplayed the extent of his executive actions.
WASHINGTON — <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Barack Obama" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 155, 255) !important;">President Obama</culink> has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.


When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Harry S. Truman" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 155, 255) !important;">Harry Truman</culink> battled the "<culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/80th United States Congress" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 155, 255) !important;">Do Nothing Congress</culink>" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.


Obama has issued executive orders to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified. He's used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control, immigration and labor regulations. Tuesday, he used a memorandum to declare Bristol Bay, Alaska, off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don't require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Presidency of Barack Obama" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 155, 255) !important;">Obama presidency</culink> have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.


Obama has made prolific use of memoranda despite his own claims that he's used his executive power less than other presidents. "The truth is, even with all the actions I've taken this year, I'm issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years," Obama said in a speech in Austin last July (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/10/remarks-president-economy-austin-tx). "So it's not clear how it is that Republicans didn't seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did."


Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the <culink class="culinks" culang="en" href="http://curiyo.com/en/topic/Federal Register" title="" style="border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed; cursor: help; display: inline !important; float: none !important; padding: 0px !important; margin: 0px !important; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 155, 255) !important;">Federal Register</culink> are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders.


http://imgur.com/fTwfaNM.png




He's already signed 33% more presidential memoranda in less than six years than Bush did in eight. He's also issued 45% more than the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who assertively used memoranda to signal what kinds of regulations he wanted federal agencies to adopt.

...

[NightTrain]

Besides that, look at the 'memoranda' issued by Bambam. They carry the same weight except they're not formally Exec Orders.

That's how Bambam likes to keep his official count low, but still rule by phone and pen.

He's issued more Exec Orders and Memos combined than anyone since Carter.

[Kathianne]

Besides that, look at the 'memoranda' issued by Bambam. They carry the same weight except they're not formally Exec Orders.

That's how Bambam likes to keep his official count low, but still rule by phone and pen.

He's issued more than anyone since Carter.

Indeed.

http://imgur.com/fgN9H8v.png

[Solo]

Can you guess who used the power of "executive orders" more than any other president?
It was Reagan.

Obama has actually issued fewer executive orders than GW Bush by a long shot.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php


I knew that but Reagan using more executive orders is history that we cant do anything about. We can only deal with right now today. Executive orders need to be minimized now for all presidents going forward. Its an absurd means to circumvent our elected representitives.

A democrats in office so they support them, when a republicans in office the rage about them and same for the GOP. We have to start taking stands on whats wrong regardless of party affiliations.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I knew that but Reagan using more executive orders is history that we cant do anything about. We can only deal with right now today. Executive orders need to be minimized now for all presidents going forward. Its an absurd means to circumvent our elected representitives.

A democrats in office so they support them, when a republicans in office the rage about them and same for the GOP. We have to start taking stands on whats wrong regardless of party affiliations.


Bear in mind that obama has expanded on Executive Orders issued by previous presidents, and done so in massively corrupt and illegal ways.
He is not credited with those orders, some of which he completely perverted to mean entirely different things.
By doing that he gained even more power for the Executive branch.
I recall authoring a thread about this here a while back and I was ridiculed by some members about it.
Will see if I can locate and post a link to that thread.-Tyr

[Gunny]

Can you guess who used the power of "executive orders" more than any other president?
It was Reagan.

Obama has actually issued fewer executive orders than GW Bush by a long shot.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

The number is irrelevant. WHAT they are used for IS relevant. Obama has done more harm to this nation than any President since Abraham Lincoln.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As promised, took some time but finally found the first thread I authored on obama's Executive Order corruption and power grabbing. From 9-28-2012 no less!!! --Tyr

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37124-Executive-Orders-Galore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/page3

09-28-2012, 07:36 PM #1 Tyr-Ziu Saxnot's Avatar Tyr-Ziu Saxnot Tyr-Ziu Saxnot is online now
I've just begun to fight!

Join Date
May 2012
Location
USA, Southern
Posts
15,838
Thanks
12,280
Thanked 8,047 Times in 4,449 PostsRep Power
6067606
Default Executive Orders Galore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Google, check out these Executive Orders and these are just the major ones! I'm sure you may have heard about the tale of the boiling Frog in the Pot that discovers too late that its just too damn late! Watch Obama's actions, not his lying words! His actions ARE NOW showing you where America is headed.

Obama has issued a new executive order that seeks to "harmonize" U.S. economic regulations with the rest of the world. This new executive order is yet another step that is pushing us closer to a North American Union and a one world economic system. Unfortunately, most Americans have absolutely no idea what is happening. The American people need to understand that Barack Obama is constantly looking for ways to integrate the United States more deeply with the rest of the world. The globalization of the world economy has accelerated under Obama, and this
latest executive order represents a fundamental change in U.S. economic policy. Now federal regulators will be required to "harmonize" their work with the International community.
THIS IT THAT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE WHEN OBAMA HAS SIGNED 923 EXECUTIVE ORDERS IN 40 MOTNHS?

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to
take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate
communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be
abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland
waterways and public storage facilities.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal
departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued
over a fifteen year period.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency
Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in
times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce
the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to
establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate
penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to
develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and
distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money
in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also
provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress
cannot review the action for six months.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Obama has signed 923 Executive Orders in 40 months! What did Congress do in those 40 months? The Senate VERY LITTLE thanks to Reid, not even a budget nor allowing any House bill to be considered.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of
transportation and control of highways and seaports.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the
communication media.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power,
gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and
farms.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work
brigades under government supervision.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education
and welfare functions.
-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the of all persons. Postmaster General to
operate a national registration.

Not really shocking that he appointed many "Czars" to be in charge of alomst everything. Dictator Obama , coming soon to every city, town and whistlestop near you!!! NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT ANY OF THIS, AND IF YOU VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN, YOU CAN EXPECT MORE! Do you remember what he told Russia 's Putin: "I'll be more flexible after I'm re-elected". All Presidents have issued Executive Orders, for reasons that vary, some more than others. When a President issued as many as 30 Ex. Orders during a term in Office, people thought there was something VERY WRONG.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT 923 EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT PRETTY MUCH GIVE 100% CONTROL OF EVERYTHING TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH!!???
Do you dare to think that something just might be amiss!?? I not only think it is , I know that it is!!-Tyr
Last edited by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot; 09-28-2012 at 07:53 PM.



09-29-2012, 11:57 AM #8 Tyr-Ziu Saxnot's Avatar Tyr-Ziu Saxnot Tyr-Ziu Saxnot is online now
I've just begun to fight!

Join Date
May 2012
Location
USA, Southern
Posts
15,838
Thanks
12,280
Thanked 8,047 Times in 4,449 PostsRep Power
6067606
Default
Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
Or your Godlike faith in your e-mail inbox? So... shoot first and ask questions later?

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...sposition.html
Obama's czars, end runs around Congress, many unconstitutional executive orders , huge government growth , SCOTUS rulings ignored, NATION BANKRUPTING BORROWIUNG, military cutting, power grabbing has all been validated.
I've asked a lot of damn questions, while you apparently prefer blindness.-Tyr

And yes back then , I caught much criticisms from the usual nay-saying suspects here. -Tyr

[Gunny]

As promised, took some time but finally found the first thread I authored on obama's Executive Order corruption and power grabbing. From 9-28-2012 no less!!! --Tyr

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And yes back then , I caught much criticisms from the usual nay-saying suspects here. -Tyr

The problem is, Executive Orders are used to circumvent Congress. That is NOT the original intent. My understanding is they are a bandaid of sorts to expedite something WHILE the proper paperwork goes through Congress to be signed into law.

It doesn't matter WHICH side is doing it. If it's being misused, it's wrong.

I DO know what Jim is talking about with the hypocrisy thing. You should have heard bully and few other left-nuts wail and gnash their teeth when Bush was President.:laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The problem is, Executive Orders are used to circumvent Congress. That is NOT the original intent. My understanding is they are a bandaid of sorts to expedite something WHILE the proper paperwork goes through Congress to be signed into law.

It doesn't matter WHICH side is doing it. If it's being misused, it's wrong.

I DO know what Jim is talking about with the hypocrisy thing. You should have heard bully and few other left-nuts wail and gnash their teeth when Bush was President.:laugh:

A post from that linked thread from back in September 2012.


10-01-2012, 07:28 PM #35 Tyr-Ziu Saxnot's Avatar Tyr-Ziu Saxnot Tyr-Ziu Saxnot is offline
I've just begun to fight!

Join Date
May 2012
Location
USA, Southern
Posts
15,839
Thanks
12,282
Thanked 8,048 Times in 4,450 PostsRep Power
6067606
Default
Quote Originally Posted by tailfins View Post
Snopes is like interviewing a terrorist. You get a lead to investigate, not indisputable
truth. Executive order 10990 was signed by JFK.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ders/1962.html
Doesnt matter who signed it when obama takes it, adds to it, to use it to further his agenda.
The list obviously also includes the many executive orders that he has chose to expand
on( a quite common practice).. An Executive Order may say do A, but then Obama adds in
do B,C, D and E too. Suddenly his add ons has made it mean an entirely different thing which
has grabbed tons of more power for the federal government. That was what I indicated when
I stated about his broadening Executive Orders. NAYSAYERS , HAVENT MUCH OF A CLUE EXCEPT
TO RESPEW TRASH OBAMA ADMIN PUT OUT TO DEFEND OBAMA'S UNCONSITUTIONAL POWER GRABBING.--TYR



I am nothing if not consistent. ;)
Great to see others seeing now and posting on this subject.--Tyr

[Gunny]

A post from that linked thread from back in September 2012.



I am nothing if not consistent. ;)
Great to see others seeing now and posting on this subject.--Tyr

It's not a matter of "seeing now". I was against Bush doing it. He had a Republican Congress. I wanted him to get stuff signed into law so the Dems couldn't just let it expire or throw it out.

[Kathianne]

I knew that but Reagan using more executive orders is history that we cant do anything about. We can only deal with right now today. Executive orders need to be minimized now for all presidents going forward. Its an absurd means to circumvent our elected representitives.

A democrats in office so they support them, when a republicans in office the rage about them and same for the GOP. We have to start taking stands on whats wrong regardless of party affiliations.


Honestly, you didn't look at the chart or neither of you are able to read it.

[Gunny]

Honestly, you didn't look at the chart or neither of you are able to read it.

You quoted only one person. Who is the other "neither"?

[Kathianne]

You quoted only one person. Who is the other "neither"?
That would be Solo and whom he quoted, Gabby.

[Gunny]

That would be Solo and whom he quoted, Gabby.

Just checking. :)

[bullypulpit]

You went a tad nutso about executive orders while Bush was in office. Why so quite for the past 7 years? Why no answers when we ask you about this? What is your current take on executive orders, are they now ok suddenly?

Well Gosh Jimmy...Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any president in a century. As for the executive orders on immigration reform...the ones that really have the right wing trolls foaming at the mouth...It seems appropriate to remind them that Ronald Reagan, in 198, issued an executive order deferring the the deportation of, some 100,000 immigrants. And, in 1990, Poppy Bush issued an executive order allowing more than 1.5 million immigrants to avoid deportation. Just another example of "It's OK when a Republican does it but sucks sweaty balls when a Democrat does it" mentality of the right wing-nuts and GOP apologists.

[jimnyc]

Well Gosh Jimmy...Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any president in a century. As for the executive orders on immigration reform...the ones that really have the right wing trolls foaming at the mouth...It seems appropriate to remind them that Ronald Reagan, in 198, issued an executive order deferring the the deportation of, some 100,000 immigrants. And, in 1990, Poppy Bush issued an executive order allowing more than 1.5 million immigrants to avoid deportation. Just another example of "It's OK when a Republican does it but sucks sweaty balls when a Democrat does it" mentality of the right wing-nuts and GOP apologists.

Sorry, but it was YOU who whined about them for so long, and now giving excuses. It only took me asking you about 500x to finally get a lame answer from you. As far as I can tell, YOU are the only one who flip flopped on this issue. Some would have thought you were going to have a stroke over them in the past. Since Obama has been in office, you fall silent and then make excuses.

As for "sucking sweaty balls". Whatever. But it's YOU who tends to the piss pans and blankets of the sick with sweaty balls. Who knows where you come up with these sick ideas from.

[gabosaurus]

Sorry, but it was YOU who whined about them for so long, and now giving excuses. It only took me asking you about 500x to finally get a lame answer from you. As far as I can tell, YOU are the only one who flip flopped on this issue. Some would have thought you were going to have a stroke over them in the past. Since Obama has been in office, you fall silent and then make excuses.


What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Trouble is, the gander doesn't have his own TV and radio people trying to convince people that one sauce is different from the other.

[Kathianne]

Bully and Gabby must have missed this, so bump!


Indeed.

http://imgur.com/fgN9H8v.png

[Jeff]

Bully and Gabby must have missed this, so bump!

It's called Liberalvission, they see what they want to and will make the rest up as they go.

[Gunny]

Well Gosh Jimmy...Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any president in a century. As for the executive orders on immigration reform...the ones that really have the right wing trolls foaming at the mouth...It seems appropriate to remind them that Ronald Reagan, in 198, issued an executive order deferring the the deportation of, some 100,000 immigrants. And, in 1990, Poppy Bush issued an executive order allowing more than 1.5 million immigrants to avoid deportation. Just another example of "It's OK when a Republican does it but sucks sweaty balls when a Democrat does it" mentality of the right wing-nuts and GOP apologists.

Bullshit.

[Gunny]

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Trouble is, the gander doesn't have his own TV and radio people trying to convince people that one sauce is different from the other.

And what's shut the fuck up for you is just just shut the fuck up for you. This argument goes WAY beyond your pay grade and spans a couple of boards. Whinypulpit has tried to test Jim for over a decade. Why do you think Jim calls him out? That f*cker won;t man u if Rhonda Rousey let him borrow her balls.

He's been punked by Jim so many times over the years it isn't even funny.

[bullypulpit]

Bullshit.

No, Gunny...fact. :lol:

[bullypulpit]

Bully and Gabby must have missed this, so bump!

I saw it, and, if you were paying attention that Dubbyuh edged out Obama in the total number of executive orders issues. :lol:

[bullypulpit]

Sorry, but it was YOU who whined about them for so long, and now giving excuses. It only took me asking you about 500x to finally get a lame answer from you. As far as I can tell, YOU are the only one who flip flopped on this issue. Some would have thought you were going to have a stroke over them in the past. Since Obama has been in office, you fall silent and then make excuses.

As for "sucking sweaty balls". Whatever. But it's YOU who tends to the piss pans and blankets of the sick with sweaty balls. Who knows where you come up with these sick ideas from.

Jimmy, I run codes. I assist with complex medical procedures at the bedside. I give care and comfort to the sick and the dying. As for "sick ideas", project much? Now enough with the ad hominems.

"(L)egal challenges to executive orders aren’t unknown, and some succeed. Thus critics of Mr. Obama’s orders should file lawsuits, as a remedy, if they can prove that his decrees seek to make law or else violate rights. It isn’t enough for these critics to claim that Mr. Obama has issued many orders. Congress itself has issued a cascade of new laws in recent years; it’s natural that the executive branch would issue orders to “execute” such laws; one merely follows the other. Otherwise, Mr. Obama is a mere piker when it comes to issuing decrees; he’s been easily out-distanced by the likes of those Republicans – e.g., Eisenhower and Reagan – who today’s conservatives claim to be paragons of constitutionally-limited government." - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2013/01/28/when-it-comes-to-abuse-of-presidential-power-obama-is-a-mere-piker/)

In other words, the right wing-nut trolls need to put up or shut up.

[Kathianne]

I saw it, and, if you were paying attention that Dubbyuh edged out Obama in the total number of executive orders issues. :lol:
and you are ignoring the totality of the USA Today article, though you were quite up to the minute with both versions back when. Indeed, you were the expert, when you detested their use.

[Jeff]

and you are ignoring the totality of the USA Today article, though you were quite up to the minute with both versions back when. Indeed, you were the expert, when you detested their use.

There we go with that Liberalvision again :laugh:

[jimnyc]

And what's shut the fuck up for you is just just shut the fuck up for you. This argument goes WAY beyond your pay grade and spans a couple of boards. Whinypulpit has tried to test Jim for over a decade. Why do you think Jim calls him out? That f*cker won;t man u if Rhonda Rousey let him borrow her balls.

He's been punked by Jim so many times over the years it isn't even funny.

Save your typing, she ain't worth it.

http://i.imgur.com/JpVCTmi.jpg

[jimnyc]

"(L)egal challenges to executive orders aren’t unknown, and some succeed. Thus critics of Mr. Obama’s orders should file lawsuits, as a remedy, if they can prove that his decrees seek to make law or else violate rights. It isn’t enough for these critics to claim that Mr. Obama has issued many orders. Congress itself has issued a cascade of new laws in recent years; it’s natural that the executive branch would issue orders to “execute” such laws; one merely follows the other. Otherwise, Mr. Obama is a mere piker when it comes to issuing decrees; he’s been easily out-distanced by the likes of those Republicans – e.g., Eisenhower and Reagan – who today’s conservatives claim to be paragons of constitutionally-limited government." - Forbes

So how many lawsuits were filed while you were bellyaching, and how many were successful? I thought so. In that case:


In other words, the left wing-nut trolls need to put up or shut up.

And you did, when Obama started writing them, you LITERALLY disappeared and stopped responding to questions about them!!!


Jimmy, I run codes. I assist with complex medical procedures at the bedside. I give care and comfort to the sick and the dying. As for "sick ideas", project much? Now enough with the ad hominems.

No need to explain, I have a very good memory, and know what you do, and you told me before about how you are kind and there for patients at the end. But if you don't like the sweaty balls shoved back into YOUR mouth, then maybe keep them right where they are and don't bring them here to begin with? Don't talk of projection when the very person who brought them into the conversation was you. I just turned your retarded statement around and shoved them down your throat.

[fj1200]

Obama has signed 923 Executive Orders in 40 months!
And yes back then , I caught much criticisms from the usual nay-saying suspects here. -Tyr

Criticism for making up numbers? As I recall you were going to "investigate" and never got around to it. That's why you're talk and no action.

[fj1200]

The problem is, Executive Orders are used to circumvent Congress. That is NOT the original intent. My understanding is they are a bandaid of sorts to expedite something WHILE the proper paperwork goes through Congress to be signed into law.

Actually an EO is generally signed by the Executive to implement laws already on the books.

[Gunny]

Actually an EO is generally signed by the Executive to implement laws already on the books.

Okay. I'll bite. Why would you need to sign into law something that is already law?

And, IMO, it's a cheap shot trick. Obama is using it to sign into law things that are CLEARLY not law. I didn't pay a lot of attention at the time, but Bush did it with the tax cuts that Obama let expire. That surely should have gone through Congress and been enacted as law.

[bullypulpit]

So how many lawsuits were filed while you were bellyaching, and how many were successful? I thought so. In that case:



And you did, when Obama started writing them, you LITERALLY disappeared and stopped responding to questions about them!!!



No need to explain, I have a very good memory, and know what you do, and you told me before about how you are kind and there for patients at the end. But if you don't like the sweaty balls shoved back into YOUR mouth, then maybe keep them right where they are and don't bring them here to begin with? Don't talk of projection when the very person who brought them into the conversation was you. I just turned your retarded statement around and shoved them down your throat.

You're not debating Jimmy...You're just yelling. And that's when I stop responding. Dismissed.

[jimnyc]

You're not debating Jimmy...You're just yelling. And that's when I stop responding. Dismissed.

It doesn't change the facts. Your hypocrisy still shines. Nothing has changed, other than you proving my point.

[Perianne]

Sorry, but it was YOU who whined about them for so long, and now giving excuses. It only took me asking you about 500x to finally get a lame answer from you. As far as I can tell, YOU are the only one who flip flopped on this issue. Some would have thought you were going to have a stroke over them in the past. Since Obama has been in office, you fall silent and then make excuses.

As for "sucking sweaty balls". Whatever. But it's YOU who tends to the piss pans and blankets of the sick with sweaty balls. Who knows where you come up with these sick ideas from.

I do that, too. Someone has to do it. :(

[jimnyc]

I do that, too. Someone has to do it. :(

But you're not the one using such words in your posts. Bully in fact did. I was just wondering as to where he was learning the terminology. :)

[Perianne]

But you're not the one using such words in your posts. Bully in fact did. I was just wondering as to where he was learning the terminology. :)

lol, I see your point. To be honest, in my 28 years of nursing, I don't remember anyone ever using "sweaty balls" (nasty) as a medical description.

[Voted4Reagan]

Sorry, but it was YOU who whined about them for so long, and now giving excuses. It only took me asking you about 500x to finally get a lame answer from you. As far as I can tell, YOU are the only one who flip flopped on this issue. Some would have thought you were going to have a stroke over them in the past. Since Obama has been in office, you fall silent and then make excuses.

As for "sucking sweaty balls". Whatever. But it's YOU who tends to the piss pans and blankets of the sick with sweaty balls. Who knows where you come up with these sick ideas from.

Cant whine about it for one and not for another...

Intellectual dishonesty seems to be BP's game...

[bullypulpit]

lol, I see your point. To be honest, in my 28 years of nursing, I don't remember anyone ever using "sweaty balls" (nasty) as a medical description.

The phrase wasn't, in any sense, used as a medical term. Rather, it was used as an analogy to evoke a sense of disgust and revulsion similar to what I imagine the political right in this country feels about actions they were perfectly comfortable with when a Republican did them, but become irrationally, almost pathologically, angry when a Democrat takes what is essentially the same action. Hence my references to the executive orders regarding immigration by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

[NightTrain]

The phrase wasn't, in any sense, used as a medical term. Rather, it was used as an analogy to evoke a sense of disgust and revulsion similar to what I imagine the political right in this country feels about actions they were perfectly comfortable with when a Republican did them, but become irrationally, almost pathologically, angry when a Democrat takes what is essentially the same action. Hence my references to the executive orders regarding immigration by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Oh. You mean how Reagan ordered his DOJ to release convicted murderer illegals back into the American public, despite laws to the contrary?

Or how Bush ordered the release of convicted sex offender illegals back into the American public, despite laws to the contrary?

Or how Reagan traded 5 terrorist leaders for an American deserter, despite laws forbidding such actions?

Or how Bush instructed his Border Patrol to not arrest thousands sneaking across the border, despite laws to the contrary?

Remember when Reagan unleashed his DOJ to carry out criminal investigations on unfriendly reporters during his 2nd term election cycle?

Surely they both instructed the IRS to harass politically opposite groups too, right?


That's right off the top of my head. There's a lot more despicable behavior we can delve into with regards to your Messiah.

How's that transparency working out for ya, Bully Boy? Still feeling Hopey-Changey?

[Gunny]

The phrase wasn't, in any sense, used as a medical term. Rather, it was used as an analogy to evoke a sense of disgust and revulsion similar to what I imagine the political right in this country feels about actions they were perfectly comfortable with when a Republican did them, but become irrationally, almost pathologically, angry when a Democrat takes what is essentially the same action. Hence my references to the executive orders regarding immigration by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Why don't you answer Jim, douche-noodle. .He's the one that called you out. Again.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh. You mean how Reagan ordered his DOJ to release convicted murderer illegals back into the American public, despite laws to the contrary?

Or how Bush ordered the release of convicted sex offender illegals back into the American public, despite laws to the contrary?

Or how Reagan traded 5 terrorist leaders for an American deserter, despite laws forbidding such actions?

Or how Bush instructed his Border Patrol to not arrest thousands sneaking across the border, despite laws to the contrary?

Remember when Reagan unleashed his DOJ to carry out criminal investigations on unfriendly reporters during his 2nd term election cycle?

Surely they both instructed the IRS to harass politically opposite groups too, right?


That's right off the top of my head. There's a lot more despicable behavior we can delve into with regards to your Messiah.

How's that transparency working out for ya, Bully Boy? Still feeling Hopey-Changey?

And that is why the left, the libs and the dems are such gigantic and eternal hypocrites.
They never feel shame for any of their lies and utter stupidity. Complete brainwashed idgits in my book.
They whitewash everything with that feel good cover of --"good intention">>

A truism if ever there was one is this ---
"The road to Hell is so often paved with good intentions"!
Freaking jackals haven't got a damn clue.... and whats worse is they are arrogant as hell in their stupidity and hypocrisy..-Tyr

[Gunny]

And that is why the left, the libs and the dems are such gigantic and eternal hypocrites.
They never feel shame for any of their lies and utter stupidity. Complete brainwashed idgits in my book.
They whitewash everything with that feel good cover of --"good intention">>

A truism if ever there was one is this ---
"The road to Hell is so often paved with good intentions"!
Freaking jackals haven't got a damn clue.... and whats worse is they are arrogant as hell in their stupidity and hypocrisy..-Tyr
\


I want this diaper waring biotch to man up. He's ducked Jim on this for 10 years.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

\


I want this diaper waring biotch to man up. He's ducked Jim on this for 10 years.

I'd like to see that too!!
Dude should man up. If not then a rubber band runs up his back instead of a spine IMHO.
And rubber bands break when pulled too tight! -:laugh:-Tyr

[jimnyc]

The phrase wasn't, in any sense, used as a medical term. Rather, it was used as an analogy to evoke a sense of disgust and revulsion similar to what I imagine the political right in this country feels about actions they were perfectly comfortable with when a Republican did them, but become irrationally, almost pathologically, angry when a Democrat takes what is essentially the same action. Hence my references to the executive orders regarding immigration by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

I call you out.

You responded to my post starting this thread. Was I angry in any way? I never defended them, only watched you go nutso over them when Bush was in office. Now I simply asked you a question, and you turn and make things up. This was ALL based on your own actions, not mine. I asked based on your own actions back then, not mine.

But you have the floor now, prove how THIS republican, the person you replied to, was irrational, angry or whatever other word you made up today?

Not only was your original crap directed at me, so was your weird thinking about balls. How about now being a man and back up what you're saying? Or do we AGAIN get to see you wiggle, make a few things up, or disappear again?

Face it, you lost again, your hypocrisy crap may work with others, but it's not flying with me. You proved yourself a political partisan hack, and an uneducated one I might add. Apparently the best of your education is "sweaty balls".

And I won't dismiss you. I dismissed your sorry ass over 7 years ago, hence the fact you only come in here to troll every now and again.

[jimnyc]

Why don't you answer Jim, douche-noodle. .He's the one that called you out. Again.

He lies. He ducks. He'll be a hypocrite and change stories and stances. He'll disappear for months on end. But everyone who knows me, and has known this shitwad for many years - had to endure his daily whining about EO's.

All he'll do is copy off of "someone else" and go back to Bush whenever you ask him a question, instead of simply answering about current times. The world can be in the midst of crumbling to the ground and these idiots would only be mumbling "Bush did it". LITERALLY incapable of handling arguments, both of them. I've handed Bully's ass to him SO many times it's actually comical, HENCE HIM DISAPPEARING. I might have to if I were him.

He'll spend much more time talking about the hypocrisy of others - not even realizing he is defining HIS OWN hypocrisy at the same time! :laugh: That's the goal, argue with others, the past, and Bush, all instead of being honest, and perhaps standing 100% against the EO's as he claimed to do so back when Bush was in office.

Intellectual - Dishonesty. As long as I've known him, that about best describes him.

[fj1200]

Okay. I'll bite. Why would you need to sign into law something that is already law?

And, IMO, it's a cheap shot trick. Obama is using it to sign into law things that are CLEARLY not law. I didn't pay a lot of attention at the time, but Bush did it with the tax cuts that Obama let expire. That surely should have gone through Congress and been enacted as law.

An EO is:


Executive orders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order) have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress) that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegated_legislation)).

But I agree, BO sucks and so do many of his EOs. I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding tax cuts; The Bush tax cuts were passed by Congress with an expiration date and didn't require an EO for that to happen.

[Gunny]

An EO is:



But I agree, BO sucks and so do many of his EOs. I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding tax cuts; The Bush tax cuts were passed by Congress with an expiration date and didn't require an EO for that to happen.

Did you miss something? I think I said I was against Bush's EO's. Like the tax cuts that expired. I wanted hem signed into law.

[Gunny]

He lies. He ducks. He'll be a hypocrite and change stories and stances. He'll disappear for months on end. But everyone who knows me, and has known this shitwad for many years - had to endure his daily whining about EO's.

All he'll do is copy off of "someone else" and go back to Bush whenever you ask him a question, instead of simply answering about current times. The world can be in the midst of crumbling to the ground and these idiots would only be mumbling "Bush did it". LITERALLY incapable of handling arguments, both of them. I've handed Bully's ass to him SO many times it's actually comical, HENCE HIM DISAPPEARING. I might have to if I were him.

He'll spend much more time talking about the hypocrisy of others - not even realizing he is defining HIS OWN hypocrisy at the same time! :laugh: That's the goal, argue with others, the past, and Bush, all instead of being honest, and perhaps standing 100% against the EO's as he claimed to do so back when Bush was in office.

Intellectual - Dishonesty. As long as I've known him, that about best describes him.

He's been ducking you since I had hair. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Did you miss something? I think I said I was against Bush's EO's. Like the tax cuts that expired. I wanted hem signed into law.

I must have missed something because tax cuts had nothing to do with Bush's EOs. And in general EOs have a legitimate purpose, BO's suck factor aside.

[Drummond]

I must have missed something because tax cuts had nothing to do with Bush's EOs. And in general EOs have a legitimate purpose, BO's suck factor aside.

This is one of those 'I say I don't support Obama, but when it comes down to it, I really do' ploys that FJ creeps into discussions every now and then.

FJ, is it still true that you want to argue against any halfway-detailed proposition of impeaching Obama that anyone posts here ? Or, in an effort to give you the benefit of the doubt, at least .. perhaps you can point us to any post of yours where it seems you actually went along with one ?

Post us a link to your example. Go right ahead ...

[fj1200]

This is one of those 'I say I don't support Obama, but when it comes down to it, I really do' ploys that FJ creeps into discussions every now and then.

FJ, is it still true that you want to argue against any halfway-detailed proposition of impeaching Obama that anyone posts here ? Or, in an effort to give you the benefit of the doubt, at least .. perhaps you can point us to any post of yours where it seems you actually went along with one ?

Post us a link to your example. Go right ahead ...

Read carefully. Bolded and enlarged since you think that makes a difference.


BO's suck factor aside.

And then learn some history about EOs. Especially as this isn't an impeachment thread.

[Drummond]

Read carefully. Bolded and enlarged since you think that makes a difference.



And then learn some history about EOs. Especially as this isn't an impeachment thread.

Yes, thank you, FJ. I did see your wording previously. This is why I posted as I did .. in acknowledgment of your having posted your words, WHICH DON'T MEASURE UP TO THE ENTIRE TRUTH.

Actually, you're copying Obama, aren't you ? Just as Obama is fond of what he considers his 'catchy' mantras, so, too, are you. The 'BO Sucks' one is one from you I've seen several times before.

NOW .. do you yet have an example for me, one showing ANY support for anyone's detailed proposition aimed at arguing for Obama's impeachment ?? Or do you prefer to continue with diversionary material, instead ? Just one example, then it's all over with. Go on ....

Tell you what. Why not go in for your usual abusive editing, instead ? Or just let rip with some insults ? Whatever it takes ....

[fj1200]

... WHICH DON'T MEASURE UP TO THE ENTIRE TRUTH.

I can't help you if you prefer to read with your preconceived, and wrong, notions.

[Drummond]

I can't help you if you prefer to read with your preconceived, and wrong, notions.

OK, here's my final attempt. Show us EVIDENCE of your support of anyone's arguments, propositions, aimed at supporting Obama's impeachment.

ONE example. Just ONE.

[fj1200]

OK, here's my final attempt. Show us EVIDENCE of your support of anyone's arguments, propositions, aimed at supporting Obama's impeachment.

ONE. Just ONE.

I laugh at trolls.* This is an EO thread. Do you have anything to say about EOs?

* that's you.

[Drummond]

I laugh at trolls.* This is an EO thread. Do you have anything to say about EOs?

* that's you.

You 'could have' dealt with this swiftly, just in one post, then left the thread to follow its natural direction.

Except, of course, you really COULDN'T. Because, for all of your self-serving propagandising, the TRUTH is that you are supportive of Left-wing politics, and those who practice it. All of your various attacks on Conservatives, to say nothing of a clear example of staunch support for one notable foreign Left-wing Government, says volumes.

I don't know if you have any great 'love' of Obama, or not, as an individual. I do know, however, that your true Leftie thinking keeps on betraying you. This has been an example, of sorts, showing what I mean. Here, today, you were TOTALLY UNABLE to support the sentiment you SAY represents you.

Of course you were.

QED.

[fj1200]

... the TRUTH is that you are supportive of Left-wing politics...

Try reading this again troll.


I can't help you if you prefer to read with your preconceived, and wrong, notions.

I take that back. You're not smart enough to be one.

[Drummond]

Try reading this again troll.

Ah, good. You've taken to editing your own stuff, instead of other people's ... I call that progress. We'll break you of troll posting, yet .. !!!

[Seriously, very well done. I'm proud of you !]


I take that back. You're not smart enough to be one.

Well, erm - this outbreak of decent posting-etiquette was nice while it lasted .... :rolleyes:

... and all to cover for your failures to provably BE what you SAY you are. You can hardly say I didn't give you ample opportunity to make your case, now, can you ?

[fj1200]

Ah, good. You've taken to editing your own stuff, instead of other people's ...

...... and all to cover for your failures to provably BE what you SAY you are.

And I didn't even get mad at myself. Apparently my skin isn't as thin as yours.


I can't help you if you prefer to read with your preconceived, and wrong, notions.

You being a lying sack is a whole 'nother matter. Of course I do concede that you might just be willfully ignorant to the truth.

[Drummond]

And I didn't even get mad at myself. Apparently my skin isn't as thin as yours.

It's long been my impression that you're far too in love with yourself for anything, or any set of circumstances, to ever have a chance of causing you to be self-critical.

It's an especially serious flaw of yours. I wish you joy in getting it remedied.


You being a lying sack is a whole 'nother matter. Of course I do concede that you might just be willfully ignorant to the truth.

More SELF-editing.

It seems that progress can only be expected to be very gradual, in your case. That's unfortunate. Still, I have hopes of a full recovery to something akin to consistent and reliable decency, achievable any year, now ....

.. Good luck with that .. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

It's long been my impression :blah: ...

Mine too. Anything to add about the actual topic? I'll to my best to help you out son.

[Gunny]

I must have missed something because tax cuts had nothing to do with Bush's EOs. And in general EOs have a legitimate purpose, BO's suck factor aside.

So why are you arguing with me if we agree? Just to be contrary? I think I already said EOs have a legit purpose and they're being misused. I don't care who is doing it, it's wrong.

Pr0blem is Congress is so busy playing partisan politics they won't stop it when they have the power to.

[fj1200]

So why are you arguing with me if we agree? Just to be contrary? I think I already said EOs have a legit purpose and they're being misused. I don't care who is doing it, it's wrong.

Pr0blem is Congress is so busy playing partisan politics they won't stop it when they have the power to.

We're not arguing then. :) In fact we're in complete agreement. I just wasn't sure the tax cut issue you raised.

[Gunny]

Let's get back on track here then. For those that don't know, bully used to whine his little diaper off at Jim back around 03-04. Then he hightailed it out of Dodge for a good 7 or 8 years. He's never stepped up to the plate.

Those of us that have been around that long would REALLY like to see what he has to say. And it isn't hard. Jim's called him on EOs the entire time. Apparently it's high crime and treason if Bush does it, but it's okay if the porch monkey has a go at it.

[Perianne]

Let's get back on track here then. For those that don't know, bully used to whine his little diaper off at Jim back around 03-04. Then he hightailed it out of Dodge for a good 7 or 8 years. He's never stepped up to the plate.

Those of us that have been around that long would REALLY like to see what he has to say. And it isn't hard. Jim's called him on EOs the entire time. Apparently it's high crime and treason if Bush does it, but it's okay if the porch monkey has a go at it.

lol