Don't Read If You Can't Handle Reality: E.O.s by POTUS

[Seawytch]

Myth Busted: Analysis Reveals That President Obama Is Not Behaving Like a Dictator

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As has been stated on every other thread that has been started like this one it is not the number of executive orders that is the issue it's the intent behind them. If a President only issued one executive order but that order was to abolish Congress and the Supreme Court it would be far more serious than the President who issued 500 trivial executive orders.

Republicans are fine with Obama issuing executive orders recognizing National Assault Rifle Day

It is just that when Obama issues executive orders that keep the government functioning that they become outraged

The Repub senator from my state sends out letters that describe all the good stuff he does. Its always photos ops and nothing more. But then, wowie-zowie, he named a bridge.

They refuse to do their job and then whine when the president does his.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

.

There is quantity and there is quality. EO's are not the same.

Unless there is some kind of qualitative analysis, the sheer numbers are not terribly conclusive.

We know this, right?

.

Right...the nutters keep saying "it's not the number, it's the scope". Okay, please show where the SCOPE of President Obama's EOs far exceed those of all those past Presidents.

Just like when I ask what Repubs have done for their country, the silence is deafening.

Just like when RWs are asked EXACTLY what Obama should do instead of what he is doing, we get more silence.

SSDD from the right.

I have posted Bush's EO in which he was able to remove all transparency of his office in order to carry out his illegal wars. Not a single one of these assholes even acknowledges it because they fucking can't think and connect even the simplest dots.

$4,000,000,000,000 and 45,000 wounded soldiers, plus 4000 dead and 186,000 dead Iraqis (latest figure) is a fucking abuse of an EO. Idiots.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

E.O.'s are used to clarify existing laws, not bypass them.

I don't care the Political Affiliation of the President doing it, and you shouldn't either.

This isn't "National League vs. American League" stupid sports stuff.

Gotta say, this is probably the most creative excuse I've read.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's puzzling why the op seems to think anyone would have a problem with her post. It's like she has no concept that people could have valid reasons to disagree with her premises.

as many have said, it's not the quantity of the eos. It's the content. Presidents traditionally use them to establish policy among the executive branch. Let's contrast that with Obama's repeated uses to go around Congress.

some sophists want to ignore the difference. That doesn't change the truth just makes them less credible.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Damn, this admin is a travelling carnival replete with bearded lady.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

E.O.'s are used to clarify existing laws, not bypass them.

I don't care the Political Affiliation of the President doing it, and you shouldn't either.

This isn't "National League vs. American League" stupid sports stuff.

Then I guess Obama hasn't abused any laws then. He just CLARIFIED them. These righties are getting excited for nuthin'.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's puzzling why the op seems to think anyone would have a problem with her post. It's like she has no concept that people could have valid reasons to disagree with her premises.

as many have said, it's not the quantity of the eos. It's the content. Presidents traditionally use them to establish policy among the executive branch. Let's contrast that with Obama's repeated uses to go around Congress.

some sophists want to ignore the difference. That doesn't change the truth just makes them less credible.

Exact examples please.

(**wink**wink**)

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Yet another partisan hack thread by a left wing loon who will always kiss Obama's ass and call it ice cream. As for abuse the multiple changes and delays to Obamacare he has made the President has no authority to change laws it is the job of Congress to write the bills that are to become laws, amend them if needed, and repeal them when necessary the Presidents job is to sign those bills into law and enforce them as written not unilaterally change them when they become a political liability to them. You may now start your denial and rationalizing.

And still nothing to corroborate your point. Maybe this will help illustrate the gray fog the rightwing seems to thrive in:

In reference to changes in the ACA:

""""The White House can’t simply decide not to set up a law; that much is clear in the constitution, which says the executive branch “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

At the same time, Congress has also given the executive branch some flexibility in determining what it means to “faithfully” execute a law. It’s hard, after all, for legislators to predict every thorny issue that will come up in the process of turning laws into regulations.

In 1946, legislators passed the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the way that regulatory agencies carry out legislation. That law both gives agencies discretion in setting up laws, but holds them accountable for carrying out Congress’s intentions.

“Under the Administrative Procedure Act precedent, the courts can compel agencies that have been unreasonably delayed,” says Simon Lazarus, a senior counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. “Those tend to involve delays that have gone on for years.”

Courts have frequently grappled with issues of what counts as an “unreasonable” delay and, as many experts will tell you, they still haven’t set a bright line between executive discretion and disobedience."""""

The White House keeps changing Obamacare. Is that legal? - The Washington Post

Thank you for your timely denial and rationalizing bet your really enjoying that ice cream.

Where's the denial? I just quoted a piece which refers to the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act.

Guess you don't read past one or two lines.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

It's puzzling why the op seems to think anyone would have a problem with her post. It's like she has no concept that people could have valid reasons to disagree with her premises.

as many have said, it's not the quantity of the eos. It's the content. Presidents traditionally use them to establish policy among the executive branch. Let's contrast that with Obama's repeated uses to go around Congress.

some sophists want to ignore the difference. That doesn't change the truth just makes them less credible.

Exact examples please.

(**wink**wink**)

When Avatar shows up it's like a pop-up peanut gallery. Or maybe a fly buzzing around just out of reach.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's puzzling why the op seems to think anyone would have a problem with her post. It's like she has no concept that people could have valid reasons to disagree with her premises.

as many have said, it's not the quantity of the eos. It's the content. Presidents traditionally use them to establish policy among the executive branch. Let's contrast that with Obama's repeated uses to go around Congress.

some sophists want to ignore the difference. That doesn't change the truth just makes them less credible.

Exact examples please.

(**wink**wink**)

When Avatar shows up it's like a pop-up peanut gallery. Or maybe a fly buzzing around just out of reach.

Ask for examples and POOF! They all disappear.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Flies usually appear a few minutes after TP and luddly.

 

[Avatar4321]

The dream act. Any EO on Obamacare.

Obama has been quite open with trying to act around Congress. You've cheered him for it. Pretending you are unaware of them is disingenuous considering past discussions.

Also Reagan may have had some questionable EOs. Doesn't matter. Any EO abuse by prior presidents does not excuse it from the current one. We can't hold dead men responsible for their actions. We can and have a duty to hold current representatives responsible or the blood of those they harm are on our hands

 

[Peach]

The dream act. Any EO on Obamacare.

Obama has been quite open with trying to act around Congress. You've cheered him for it. Pretending you are unaware of them is disingenuous considering past discussions.

Also Reagan may have had some questionable EOs. Doesn't matter. Any EO abuse by prior presidents does not excuse it from the current one. We can't hold dead men responsible for their actions. We can and have a duty to hold current representatives responsible or the blood of those they harm are on our hands

And content, not quantity should be examined; raw numbers mean little.

 

[onecut39]

So once again you are lying about what the issue is.

It isn't about how many EOs Obama has signed. No one cares about that.

It is what those EOs do.

To put in to an example you lefties may finally understand...

I don't care how many times you suck someone off as long as they are an adult. That doesn't bother me. But you try to suck off a child even once, you deserver this...

Great picture, no content or context

Would it be too much to ask that you select ONE XO that you particularly disagree with and explain your disapproval?

Waiting.........................................

 

[DriftingSand]

Worth it's own thread.

Conservatives Polled: "12.3 percent -- Obama's abuse of executive power to bypass Congress."

(I wonder if Reagan would have hit 400 if he had had another year in office?)

As of June 14, 2014

Here's every presidential executive order going back to George Washington | PBS NewsHour

Dwight D. Eisenhower 484
John F. Kennedy 214
Lyndon B. Johnson 325
Richard Nixon 346
Gerald R. Ford 169
Jimmy Carter 320
Ronald Reagan 381
George Bush 166 (IN ONE TERM!)
William J. Clinton 364
George W. Bush 291
Barack Obama 183

You just don't get it

It is not the number of executive orders but the fact that Republicans can't stand a Democrat issuing them

You see, Republicans are trying to stop all government functions while a Democrat is in office......Executive Orders prevent them from doing that

If an EO is in line with the Constitution and beneficial to natural-born Americans who work for a living then most folks can live with them. When they ignore the Constitution, the American taxpayer, and basic common sense and when they're designed to benefit foreigners and special interest groups then Americans have a right to be upset.

 

[gtarguy921]

As has been stated on every other thread that has been started like this one it is not the number of executive orders that is the issue it's the intent behind them. If a President only issued one executive order but that order was to abolish Congress and the Supreme Court it would be far more serious than the President who issued 500 trivial executive orders.

No it isn't. If that were true, right wingers would cite specific examples of presidential over reach.

You aren't doing so, because you don't know of any .... hell, you don't even give enough of a shit about it to look any up.

It's about right wing hypocrites, spoonfeeding a bunch of cult-tard useful idiots who are scared shitless of reality.

 

[rightwinger]

Worth it's own thread.

Conservatives Polled: "12.3 percent -- Obama's abuse of executive power to bypass Congress."

(I wonder if Reagan would have hit 400 if he had had another year in office?)

As of June 14, 2014

Here's every presidential executive order going back to George Washington | PBS NewsHour

Dwight D. Eisenhower 484
John F. Kennedy 214
Lyndon B. Johnson 325
Richard Nixon 346
Gerald R. Ford 169
Jimmy Carter 320
Ronald Reagan 381
George Bush 166 (IN ONE TERM!)
William J. Clinton 364
George W. Bush 291
Barack Obama 183

You just don't get it

It is not the number of executive orders but the fact that Republicans can't stand a Democrat issuing them

You see, Republicans are trying to stop all government functions while a Democrat is in office......Executive Orders prevent them from doing that

If an EO is in line with the Constitution and beneficial to natural-born Americans who work for a living then most folks can live with them. When they ignore the Constitution, the American taxpayer, and basic common sense and when they're designed to benefit foreigners and special interest groups then Americans have a right to be upset.

The problem with Conservatives is that they believe that any legislation or executive order that they do not support somehow violates the Constitution

Why don't you give me an example of an EO that does?

 

[bripat9643]

E.O.'s are used to clarify existing laws, not bypass them.

I don't care the Political Affiliation of the President doing it, and you shouldn't either.

This isn't "National League vs. American League" stupid sports stuff.

Then I guess Obama hasn't abused any laws then. He just CLARIFIED them. These righties are getting excited for nuthin'.

So he "CLARIFIED" the law when he allowed various organizations to disobey the deadlines mandated in Obamacare?

 

[bodecea]

Worth it's own thread.

Conservatives Polled: "12.3 percent -- Obama's abuse of executive power to bypass Congress."

(I wonder if Reagan would have hit 400 if he had had another year in office?)

As of June 14, 2014

Here's every presidential executive order going back to George Washington | PBS NewsHour

Dwight D. Eisenhower 484
John F. Kennedy 214
Lyndon B. Johnson 325
Richard Nixon 346
Gerald R. Ford 169
Jimmy Carter 320
Ronald Reagan 381
George Bush 166 (IN ONE TERM!)
William J. Clinton 364
George W. Bush 291
Barack Obama 183

You've hit the nail on the head...they are complaining he hasn't done it ENOUGH.