Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the president when, as a candidate for the office of presidency, criticized GWB for executive actions?
Isn’t this the president who campaigned on a promise to not circumvent Congress and govern by executive privilege?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRfrcit05M

Yes to both. However, if Congress won't work with you in general, especially on something that the majority of Americans of both parties say they want (e.g., background checks) then you use the tools you have to achieve what you can.

I'm sorry, were you trying to create a "Read my lips, no new taxes!" moment?

Some of us take a slightly more realistic view of our politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you guys realize that by doing this, Obama has set a precedent? If Cruz wins the White House, he could use Exrcutive Order after Executive Order. And when Libs whine Cruz will say " I have a pen and a phone."

Executive Orders are older than Obama.

They're older than Bush, too.

Yes, but they generally haven't been used on things as big as gun control and immigration.

And compromise wasn't always a dirty word. Dysfunction creates all kinds of problems.

Yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you guys realize that by doing this, Obama has set a precedent? If Cruz wins the White House, he could use Exrcutive Order after Executive Order. And when Libs whine Cruz will say " I have a pen and a phone."

Executive Orders are older than Obama.

They're older than Bush, too.

Yes, but they generally haven't been used on things as big as gun control and immigration.

Anonymous wrote:Don't you guys realize that by doing this, Obama has set a precedent? If Cruz wins the White House, he could use Exrcutive Order after Executive Order. And when Libs whine Cruz will say " I have a pen and a phone."

Executive Orders are older than Obama.

They're older than Bush, too.

Anonymous wrote:

PaleoConPrep wrote:No. The "worst" that could happen is a conservative uprising and bloodshed in the streets.

Not gonna happen.

These are the same knuckleheads who tried it in the 1860s. Didn't work out too well for them last time either.

Isn’t this the president when, as a candidate for the office of presidency, criticized GWB for executive actions?
Isn’t this the president who campaigned on a promise to not circumvent Congress and govern by executive privilege?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRfrcit05M

Anonymous wrote:Don't you guys realize that by doing this, Obama has set a precedent? If Cruz wins the White House, he could use Exrcutive Order after Executive Order. And when Libs whine Cruz will say " I have a pen and a phone."

For that to be a problem from the liberal perspective the Republicans would have to lose control of Congress.

It's unlikely that if the next President is a Republican he will need to use executive orders to get around a Congress that has actively tried to make him a one term President, repeal his signature legislation (how many times now?) and thwart him at every turn.

Granted, the use of executive orders does create a precedent, but when the Republican party believes in the Unitary Executive theory, anyway, it's not like some principled stand by Obama or any Democratic President would keep a Republican President from exercising that power.

Anonymous wrote:Don't you guys realize that by doing this, Obama has set a precedent? If Cruz wins the White House, he could use Exrcutive Order after Executive Order. And when Libs whine Cruz will say " I have a pen and a phone."

That precedent was already set w/ his immigration executive action. At least this one I can get behind.

Don't you guys realize that by doing this, Obama has set a precedent? If Cruz wins the White House, he could use Exrcutive Order after Executive Order. And when Libs whine Cruz will say " I have a pen and a phone."

It won't happen due to this. I'm just saying if Obama got too excited, and went really far( such as banning certain types of guns) it could lead to an uprising.

About time.

PaleoConPrep wrote:No. The "worst" that could happen is a conservative uprising and bloodshed in the streets.

Not gonna happen.

Anonymous wrote:What part of "well regulated" do these ammosexual morons not understand?

You don't get to talk about "betrayal" or "unconstitutional" when you willfully throw away half of the text of the 2nd Amendment.

Haven't heard that before; that's pretty good.

What part of "well regulated" do these ammosexual morons not understand?

You don't get to talk about "betrayal" or "unconstitutional" when you willfully throw away half of the text of the 2nd Amendment.