Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Remember, there IS a constitutional provision limiting a president to TWO terms.
There's also one requiring a president be born in The USA.
See why the queasiness?
Well yes, we all see why the queasiness. When people like you can repeat such fucking bullshit with a straight face, we all understand how lies become political currency.
Yeah! I am pretty sure most on the left don't support a dictatorship.
Correct.
No one on the left supports a dictatorship. .
Wow someone needs to tell Rangel is he not a leftist, lol.
The notion is as idiotic as the idea that anyone is seeking a third term for Obama.
Despite the fact that people have been documented doing exactly that.
You libtards view the world through your ideological spectacles so much, you don't know how to ever take them off, even for a moment to read what your opponents say.
Exactly. It is very common to see people on both sides pointing to the minority extremist position on the opposite spectrum when they make their arguments (or insults) while pretending they are addressing the more common opinion. If we really want to have a meaningful discussion why not address an opinion another poster actually said when attributing it to their ideology?How many? 10? 20?
Are they representative of all liberals?
Are rightists who advocate Islam be banned representative of all conservatives?
No one on the left is seeking a third term for the president, and it remains ignorant idiocy to argue otherwise.
The hilarious part is not a single IAEA inspector has yet to set foot in any of Iran's nuclear bomb making facilities. Nor will they. The Mullahs are simply 'running on the spot' pretending they are willing to allow inspections. The instant the six month 'agreement' was made public to the US average person the Mullahs claimed the US was "lying" about the 'meaning' of the agreement. So it's back to square one....again.Wry,
You forgot about that imaginary red line the world made obama draw. I can't make up my mind if it was arrogance, stupidness, or cowardness. Maybe all three, either way what he did is exactly the same as bush. So what your saying obama is just as bad as bush?
No, that's not what I 'said'. What I 'said' I posted. Nothing more.
If the "imaginary red line" you reference was the Iran gambit, it was not any of those things you suggested. It was an effort to move forward. Time will tell its outcome; if Iran fails to live up to its promise more economic pressures can be employed and greater will the Iranian People's dissatisfaction. When a person or a nation's population begins to feel optimistic and it is suddenly crushed, revolution is a likely outcome. Iranian leaders know this and so does the Obama Administration.
Yup, they have been playing this script for years.The hilarious part is not a single IAEA inspector has yet to set foot in any of Iran's nuclear bomb making facilities. Nor will they. The Mullahs are simply 'running on the spot' pretending they are willing to allow inspections. The instant the six month 'agreement' was made public to the US average person the Mullahs claimed the US was "lying" about the 'meaning' of the agreement.
Correct.
No one on the left supports a dictatorship. .
Wow someone needs to tell Rangel is he not a leftist, lol.
The notion is as idiotic as the idea that anyone is seeking a third term for Obama.
Despite the fact that people have been documented doing exactly that.
You libtards view the world through your ideological spectacles so much, you don't know how to ever take them off, even for a moment to read what your opponents say.
How many? 10? 20?
Are they representative of all liberals?
Are rightists who advocate Islam be banned representative of all conservatives?
No one on the left is seeking a third term for the president, and it remains ignorant idiocy to argue otherwise.
Exactly. It is very common to see people on both sides pointing to the minority extremist position on the opposite spectrum when they make their arguments (or insults) while pretending they are addressing the more common opinion. If we really want to have a meaningful discussion why not address an opinion another poster actually said when attributing it to their ideology?How many? 10? 20?
Are they representative of all liberals?
Are rightists who advocate Islam be banned representative of all conservatives?
No one on the left is seeking a third term for the president, and it remains ignorant idiocy to argue otherwise.
In other words... which posters support a 3rd term for Obama? I'd love to see a discussion with that nutjob.
Proof of what exactly? You quoted my post, what is it proving in relation to it.lol, I found this:
Obama 2016 Election News | Obama Seeks Third Term ? Obama Third Term
Pretty sure it's a spoof but haven't read it yet.
roflmao
Proof of what exactly? You quoted my post, what is it proving in relation to it.lol, I found this:
Obama 2016 Election News | Obama Seeks Third Term ? Obama Third Term
Pretty sure it's a spoof but haven't read it yet.
roflmao
A website selling things using fear of an Obama 3rd term (sounds right up your alley) is proof there are posters here who advocate a 3rd term for him?
Rangel calls for Obama to rule by decree
Charlie Rangel Wants Presidential Executive Orders for ?Everything? | Politicker
Professor calls for unlimited terms for Obama...i.e. President for life.
End presidential term limits - The Washington Post
And Obama has long used executive power to just ignore Congressionally passed laws or to use regs to implement laws Congress never passed and the libtards love it. They eat it all up.
People, this country will not tolerate a President for Life like Chavez and if this course is continued we will have a shooting war, and I guarantee the libtards will have their asses handed to their survivors in a dump truck.
Well Rangle's idea is simply nuts. However, Obama hasn't issued as many EO's as GWB or Reagan* but that doesn't excuse him for being simply overzealous. And to be real, it depends on how the EO is used.
* Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index
A/O October 4th, Obama has 163, GWB had 290 and Reagan had 380.
Also, I think the thread's title is an over-statement. I'm darn sure, based on Obama's performance, that many Dems don't want a Obama dictartorship. They just want 2016 to come quickly so Hillary can replace "O".
For me the issue about Obama's EO's isn't their number so much as the scope of powers he claims for himself, EO 13603 being a prime example.
Based on what data?
Which of the following dictators are unpopular on the left?
1. Chairman Mao who has had a WH Christmas tree ornament in his likeness?
2. Hugo Chavez, whom our dear Potus has said he admires?
3. Fidel Castro whom every Hollyweird leftwing shit-for-brains actor has praised or even made a pilgrimage to see and praise?
Nah, your word isn't good for jack shit; how about some facts?
Stop mixing medication.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again, no facts, no reason, just a sad form of sarcastic humor that concedes the points established.
Well done, libtard, well done!
Well Rangle's idea is simply nuts. However, Obama hasn't issued as many EO's as GWB or Reagan* but that doesn't excuse him for being simply overzealous. And to be real, it depends on how the EO is used.
* Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index
A/O October 4th, Obama has 163, GWB had 290 and Reagan had 380.
Also, I think the thread's title is an over-statement. I'm darn sure, based on Obama's performance, that many Dems don't want a Obama dictartorship. They just want 2016 to come quickly so Hillary can replace "O".
For me the issue about Obama's EO's isn't their number so much as the scope of powers he claims for himself, EO 13603 being a prime example.
A prime example, yes but not of what you think......
snopes.com: Executive Order 13603 -- National Defense Resources Preparedness
Note what this EO specifically orders: identify, assess, be prepared, improve, foster cooperation. None of these items claim authority to seize private property and place them at the personal disposal of Obama. What follows after Section 103 are the directives for implementing these rather analytical tasks, mostly in the form of explicit delegations of presidential authority to Cabinet members and others in the executive branch.
Why the update? If one takes a look at EO 12919, the big change is in the Cabinet itself. In 1994, we didn't have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS. In EO 12919, the FEMA director had those responsibilities, and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several references to FEMA (ten in all). Otherwise, there arent a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate.
In fact, that's almost entirely what it is. The original EO dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248) according to the National Archives. It has been superseded a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every President through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush.
Obama has added to Section 201(b) the phrase "under both emergency and non-emergency conditions." In 12919, though, the duties of the Cabinet Secretaries were not limited to emergency situations in Section 201(b), either.
Again, no facts, no reason, just a sad form of sarcastic humor that concedes the points established.
Well done, libtard, well done!
And what facts are you going on lunatic?
Yes, the majority of the left doesn't support an Obama dictatorship. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. I didn't concede anything, your post doesn't deserve anything other than sarcasm.
As for the rest of the crap you posted... Once again, stop mixing medication.
Again, no facts, no reason, just a sad form of sarcastic humor that concedes the points established.
Well done, libtard, well done!
And what facts are you going on lunatic?
Yes, the majority of the left doesn't support an Obama dictatorship. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. I didn't concede anything, your post doesn't deserve anything other than sarcasm.
As for the rest of the crap you posted... Once again, stop mixing medication.
The data in the OP, dumbass.
And what facts are you going on lunatic?
Yes, the majority of the left doesn't support an Obama dictatorship. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. I didn't concede anything, your post doesn't deserve anything other than sarcasm.
As for the rest of the crap you posted... Once again, stop mixing medication.
The data in the OP, dumbass.
You call the material in the OP data then call me a dumbass?
It isn't data, it's opinion not based on the majority.
Find me DATA that says the majority support a dictatorship, lunatic.
People like you annoy me so much. Your hatred has made you ignorant.
The data in the OP, dumbass.
You call the material in the OP data then call me a dumbass?
It isn't data, it's opinion not based on the majority.
Find me DATA that says the majority support a dictatorship, lunatic.
People like you annoy me so much. Your hatred has made you ignorant.
Yeah, twat-faced bitch, DATA, as in the Post published an article calling for the end of Presidential term limits so Obama can have a third term and more.
The Post, like most major papers do not publish articles they think outside the scope of what is reasonable.
If you don't know that then you are too fucking stupid and/of ignorant to remedy.
Rangel does polling, like all those whores, and would not call for Obama to rule by decree if he thought no one supported it in his community and that it would have a negative impact on his re-election.
So, please, just shut your pie hole and blow off, OK?
