Politically XD Since I'm bored

Hmmmmmm, Like?

Republican - I like Mitt Romney	25.0%	[ 6 ]
Republican - Don't really like Mitt, though.	12.5%	[ 3 ]
Democrat - I like Barack Obama	45.8%	[ 11 ]
Democrat - Don't really like Obama, though.	16.7%	[ 4 ]
Total Votes:			[ 24 ]

[My Dog Mr. Kitty]

Divine_Malevolence

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Divine_Malevolence

DynaSuarez Wrecks

Divine_Malevolence

As a liberal, I wish Obama was more liberal.

But I know that he really can't, because he has to compromise with the dipshit republicans. Even if they're going to block him on literally everything anyway.

Dipshits redundantly blocking the dipshit president, no less, because almost everything the dipshit president does is unconstitutional anyway and therefore shouldn't need to be stonewalled on the dipshit Congress floor. (Dipshit Justices not doing their jobs either - go figure).

By the way, OP, poll sucks - why isn't there at a least a "None of the above" response?

It's funny because he drinks the Faux News coolaid.

I don't watch Fox News, or even listen to conservative talk radio. I'm an independent, probably closest to libertarian than any other party

I agree with what he said

Funny thing about coolaid is that you don't need to drink it from the bowl.

Like, even half believing that bowl of crap is logically a joke. If anything Obama actually tried to pull was actually unconstitutional, he would've been impeached by now. Faux News wouldn't be sitting around talking about bullshit, they'd be covering the Republican run impeachment trial.

Only the Republicans know damn well that that wouldn't actually work. Because nothing Obama's doing is actually unconstitutional. The Republican dominated Supreme Court agrees with the fact that he's not doing anything unconstitutional...
When they went with the rather conservative notion that voter suppression is actually a good thing. And that bribery is perfectly okay if you're only using it to get the office.

Like, really. What a joke.
You're buying into Lex Luthor's plans. Y'gotta realize that it's nothing but a hamfisted attempt to kill Superman.
....
Which is a strangely appropriate parallel.

I can tell you, like most liberals, don't know a word you're talking about

First off, you clearly don't even know what impeachment is. You don't impeach a president for doing things that are unconstitutional. To quote the constitution, "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Now that we have that cleared up, let's get to unconstitutional things Obama has done

Forbes

One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”

And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that’s fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I’d update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.


2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.


7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

8. Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to “one court, one case, one company.”

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Happy New Year!

Source

I also find it sad how your political stance seems not to come from personal beliefs of your own, but simply a dislike for a single "news" station, one which even many republicans dislike. And all the while you ignore the obvious left wing bias that most other "news" (I put it in quotations because they're not really news, these cable stations are news commentary) stations have. But because those reinforce your already held beliefs, while Fox says something different, you don't notice the blatant bias held in them

And really? You're comparing Obama to Superman?

[Glorious Leader Luna]

As a Brit Obama is quite the c**k

Siding with Argies over the Falkland Islands
Snubbing the funeral of Thatcher
Holding up a Senate Resolution honouring Thatcher
Throwing Churchill out of the Oval Office
anti-British rhetoric around BP
Giving DVDs to the Prime Minister what did not work
Calling France America’s strongest ally

[Divine_Malevolence]

My Dog Mr. Kitty

I can tell you, like most liberals, don't know a word you're talking about

First off, you clearly don't even know what impeachment is. You don't impeach a president for doing things that are unconstitutional. To quote the constitution, "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Now that we have that cleared up, let's get to unconstitutional things Obama has done

Forbes

One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”

And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that’s fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I’d update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.


2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.


7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

8. Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to “one court, one case, one company.”

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Happy New Year!

Source

I also find it sad how your political stance seems not to come from personal beliefs of your own, but simply a dislike for a single "news" station, one which even many republicans dislike. And all the while you ignore the obvious left wing bias that most other "news" (I put it in quotations because they're not really news, these cable stations are news commentary) stations have. But because those reinforce your already held beliefs, while Fox says something different, you don't notice the blatant bias held in them

And really? You're comparing Obama to Superman?

And suddenly disobeying the constitution isn't a high crime?
What a dipshit you turned out to be.

Most of those ten are a combination of more than one of the following:
Not caused by Obama.
Not unconstitutional in any way.
Not even bad.

I mean, complaining about delays. Talk about desperate ploys to find anything to complain about.
And not forcing people who already have insurance to get new insurance when their old insurance isn't there.... Under the single payer program, which is strictly superior.

Like, the IRS. Which is supposed to single out organizations with political sounding names for additional scrutiny. As part of their jobs.
Which they do to both sides.
Not unconstitutional, not because of Obama in any way, and not even bad.


You're complaining that the president took advantage of the short period of time that his appointments couldn't be delayed indefinitely for literally no reason?
That's not bad or unconstitutional, by the way, and in fact would not be necessary if the Republicans weren't blocking literally every appointment with literally no basis for any of it. But, sure, the president doing his job is a negative thing because.... Well, coolaid, ********.


And you're noting that, in the face of congress being worthless due to Republicans being worthless, Obama doing what they should be doing in some small extremely limited way is.... Negative?
You saying that if there was a continuous pointless puppy drowning plant in place, and Lex Luthor was preventing an assembly to do anything about it, Superman should just sit by and let all the puppies drown?
Exceptionally stupid case, yes, I know, but it should get the point across.
What, you've got something against the president doing his job, in a manner that most of the country agrees on that only hasn't been done already because Republicans are assholes?
Are you ******** kidding me?


Like, hate on the man all you want.
But come up with real reasons.

Oh, and none of my views have anything to do with Faux News. I just find that all the arguments against Obama are horribly founded and seem to originate from it.
Yours included.
See, I look at things objectively. I don't use a top ten list put out by someone who's clearly a moron, I look at everything on a case by case basis.
And, sure, Obama's not perfect.
But using three parts of a top ten list to speak out against a law that was deemed constitutional by the highest court of the land being delayed....?
That's the best you could come up with?
You find that's even worth sharing?


I can tell you, like most single cell amoebas, don't know a word you're talking about.

[My Dog Mr. Kitty]

Divine_Malevolence

My Dog Mr. Kitty

I can tell you, like most liberals, don't know a word you're talking about

First off, you clearly don't even know what impeachment is. You don't impeach a president for doing things that are unconstitutional. To quote the constitution, "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Now that we have that cleared up, let's get to unconstitutional things Obama has done

Forbes

One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”

And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that’s fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I’d update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.


2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.


7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

8. Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to “one court, one case, one company.”

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Happy New Year!

Source

I also find it sad how your political stance seems not to come from personal beliefs of your own, but simply a dislike for a single "news" station, one which even many republicans dislike. And all the while you ignore the obvious left wing bias that most other "news" (I put it in quotations because they're not really news, these cable stations are news commentary) stations have. But because those reinforce your already held beliefs, while Fox says something different, you don't notice the blatant bias held in them

And really? You're comparing Obama to Superman?

And suddenly disobeying the constitution isn't a high crime?
What a dipshit you turned out to be.

Most of those ten are a combination of more than one of the following:
Not caused by Obama.
Not unconstitutional in any way.
Not even bad.

I mean, complaining about delays. Talk about desperate ploys to find anything to complain about.
And not forcing people who already have insurance to get new insurance when their old insurance isn't there.... Under the single payer program, which is strictly superior.

Like, the IRS. Which is supposed to single out organizations with political sounding names for additional scrutiny. As part of their jobs.
Which they do to both sides.
Not unconstitutional, not because of Obama in any way, and not even bad.


You're complaining that the president took advantage of the short period of time that his appointments couldn't be delayed indefinitely for literally no reason?
That's not bad or unconstitutional, by the way, and in fact would not be necessary if the Republicans weren't blocking literally every appointment with literally no basis for any of it. But, sure, the president doing his job is a negative thing because.... Well, coolaid, ********.


And you're noting that, in the face of congress being worthless due to Republicans being worthless, Obama doing what they should be doing in some small extremely limited way is.... Negative?
You saying that if there was a continuous pointless puppy drowning plant in place, and Lex Luthor was preventing an assembly to do anything about it, Superman should just sit by and let all the puppies drown?
Exceptionally stupid case, yes, I know, but it should get the point across.
What, you've got something against the president doing his job, in a manner that most of the country agrees on that only hasn't been done already because Republicans are assholes?
Are you ******** kidding me?


Like, hate on the man all you want.
But come up with real reasons.

Oh, and none of my views have anything to do with Faux News. I just find that all the arguments against Obama are horribly founded and seem to originate from it.
Yours included.
See, I look at things objectively. I don't use a top ten list put out by someone who's clearly a moron, I look at everything on a case by case basis.
And, sure, Obama's not perfect.
But using three parts of a top ten list to speak out against a law that was deemed constitutional by the highest court of the land being delayed....?
That's the best you could come up with?
You find that's even worth sharing?


I can tell you, like most single cell amoebas, don't know a word you're talking about.

Oh no, big letters that are bolded. I have been defeated

Your entire argument is that you like what he did, not that it's constitutional. Getting around congress is unconstitutional, whether he likes what congress does or not. A president can't simply say "well, I can't get this law passed through congress, so executive action!" It doesn't work that way, the president isn't all powerful. Even then, your idea that most of the country agrees with what he's doing is false too. His average approval rating over his presidency has been 48%. That's not most of the country

I'm sure you're smarter than a Forbes writer, huh? I just found it easier to find an article that I agreed with than to type it all out myself, especially considering that I knew you'd simply bullshit your answer

I'm actually surprised I haven't been called a racist yet. Normally anytime someone disagrees with Obama they're called a racist

[X of Castigation]

He's a good President.

EDIT: You crazies are acting as if the POTUS is a king.

[Divine_Malevolence]

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Oh no, big letters that are bolded. I have been defeated

Your entire argument is that you like what he did, not that it's constitutional. Getting around congress is unconstitutional, whether he likes what congress does or not. A president can't simply say "well, I can't get this law passed through congress, so executive action!" It doesn't work that way, the president isn't all powerful. Even then, your idea that most of the country agrees with what he's doing is false too. His average approval rating over his presidency has been 48%. That's not most of the country

I'm sure you're smarter than a Forbes writer, huh? I just found it easier to find an article that I agreed with than to type it all out myself, especially considering that I knew you'd simply bullshit your answer

I'm actually surprised I haven't been called a racist yet. Normally anytime someone disagrees with Obama they're called a racist

That's not how accusations work, dumbass.
Which is sort of pathetic, as with the constitution, citing the charge is quite easy.

Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. Your top ten list has three instances of parts of an act deemed constitutional being delayed as it's top three.

Where in the constitution does it say anything about delaying legislation?
Oh, wait, it doesn't?
Well s**t. Guess I am smarter than that dumbass.
Forbes should up its standards. 'Till then, have any actual reasons, or are you done spewing stupidity?
Because right now the jury knows damn well that they're all saying "Innocent" on account of the fact that you've literally got nothing whatsoever.
Which is exceptionally pathetic on account of the fact that you're defending an idiot who claimed "Almost everything Obama tries to do is unconstitutional."

Thus far literally nothing he's tried to pull is unconstitutional.
You're short by about almost all of what he's supposedly done that deserves to be blocked by congress.
Oh, right, I'm also making a case here?
My original statement was, in fact, that Republicans are just blocking him on everything despite his measures to compromise.

I think I'll bolster that case.
With the fact that Obamacare is basically a carbon copy of Romneycare, a bill passed in Massachusetts by his presidential opponent, that has demonstrated the fact that it works.
Unlike literally everything else Romney tried.
And that Republicans, despite it essentially being a Republican bill in and of itself, went out of their way to shut it down on multiple occasions, going so far as to shut down the government and threaten default to try and stop what is essentially their bill.


Tell me, what exactly is the excuse for blocking literally everything no matter how much the democratic party tried to compromise?
And by everything I mean literally everything.
What's the justification for the 2008 meeting in which the Republicans decided to, despite the country literally being in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression, oppose any economic policies the president would try to put in place?




Like, I'm not quite certain how you're so blind.
We've got a congress that is going out of their way to shut down anything the opposition can do purely for political purposes despite being in a situation where we actually need our government to focus, and are doing so via basically not doing their jobs.
And they're trying to make it so that the president can also not do his job.
So when the president uses other means to do the job that the American people elected him to do, they start to b***h.

And you're falling for that bitching. Because somehow, it's Obama's fault.
Your rage is blatantly misplaced and your ignorance is astounding. Not to mention, you're kind of boring.
Don't bother responding, you're so pathetic that I wouldn't bother reading it.

[the reverend silver]

Tackle and Tickle

are anarchist in this poll. No. We'll just be ignored as always.

You? Anarchist? Really?

I seem to remember disagreeing with you, that shouldn't be possible. We're on the same page.

[WeepingWilloww]

Da Grim Creeper

WeepingWilloww

Yup.... Still like obama?

I hate him.

racist

I'm not racist? I'm tired of everyone saying that, just because I don't agree with Obama.
My boyfriend is black.
My bestfriend is black.
My great grandpa is black.
So ******** you, dumbass.

[Da Grim Creeper]

WeepingWilloww

Da Grim Creeper

WeepingWilloww

Yup.... Still like obama?

I hate him.

racist

I'm not racist? I'm tired of everyone saying that, just because I don't agree with Obama.
My boyfriend is black.
My bestfriend is black.
My great grandpa is black.
So ******** you, dumbass.

Sorry, I meant you're bias.

[WeepingWilloww]

Divine_Malevolence

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Divine_Malevolence

DynaSuarez Wrecks

Divine_Malevolence

As a liberal, I wish Obama was more liberal.

But I know that he really can't, because he has to compromise with the dipshit republicans. Even if they're going to block him on literally everything anyway.

Dipshits redundantly blocking the dipshit president, no less, because almost everything the dipshit president does is unconstitutional anyway and therefore shouldn't need to be stonewalled on the dipshit Congress floor. (Dipshit Justices not doing their jobs either - go figure).

By the way, OP, poll sucks - why isn't there at a least a "None of the above" response?

It's funny because he drinks the Faux News coolaid.

I don't watch Fox News, or even listen to conservative talk radio. I'm an independent, probably closest to libertarian than any other party

I agree with what he said

Funny thing about coolaid is that you don't need to drink it from the bowl.

Like, even half believing that bowl of crap is logically a joke. If anything Obama actually tried to pull was actually unconstitutional, he would've been impeached by now. Faux News wouldn't be sitting around talking about bullshit, they'd be covering the Republican run impeachment trial.

Only the Republicans know damn well that that wouldn't actually work. Because nothing Obama's doing is actually unconstitutional. The Republican dominated Supreme Court agrees with the fact that he's not doing anything unconstitutional...
When they went with the rather conservative notion that voter suppression is actually a good thing. And that bribery is perfectly okay if you're only using it to get the office.

Like, really. What a joke.
You're buying into Lex Luthor's plans. Y'gotta realize that it's nothing but a hamfisted attempt to kill Superman.
....
Which is a strangely appropriate parallel.

You basically said the same thing three times. You probably don't even look at the Fox news channel anyway, considering you spelled it wrong.


He uses Americans tax money to take his kids on vacation. Most Liberals only look at one side of the picture only knowing and believing what they want to believe.

I admit, Republicans do the same, but I try to look at both sides before picking.

I'm not Republican nor Democrat.

I pick whichever I believe the most. And I wanted Mitt last time, and Mccain the time before that.

[WeepingWilloww]

Da Grim Creeper

WeepingWilloww

Da Grim Creeper

WeepingWilloww

Yup.... Still like obama?

I hate him.

racist

I'm not racist? I'm tired of everyone saying that, just because I don't agree with Obama.
My boyfriend is black.
My bestfriend is black.
My great grandpa is black.
So ******** you, dumbass.

Sorry, I meant you're bias.

I just don't like the way Obama thinks.

[Divine_Malevolence]

WeepingWilloww

You probably don't even look at the Fox news channel anyway, considering you spelled it wrong.

"faux
fō
adjective
made in imitation; artificial.
not genuine; fake or false."

[WeepingWilloww]

Divine_Malevolence

WeepingWilloww

You probably don't even look at the Fox news channel anyway, considering you spelled it wrong.

"faux
fō
adjective
made in imitation; artificial.
not genuine; fake or false."

Oh.. Heehee.. I wasn't thinking

[tricksyGoodfellow]

Divine_Malevolence

tricksyGoodfellow

Divine_Malevolence

As a liberal, I wish Obama was more liberal.

But I know that he really can't, because he has to compromise with the dips**t republicans. Even if they're going to block him on literally everything anyway.

It is incredibly difficult to get anything passed when the majority in the legislative branch is a different party than the executive, but it can be done. However, I don't necessarily consider President Obama's recent tactic of using executive authority to push legislation through is the right way to go about it.

(By the way, I'm a Moderate, but I lean more toward the conservative end of the spectrum. Just thought I would admit my biases. 3nodding )

And the funny thing about his recent tactic is that he's done it less than his predecessors.

And it's not so much that a majority of the legislative branch is in a different party, I'd say that it's the fact that too much of the legislative branch is in the hands of a single party dedicated to bringing him down.
Re Mitch McConnell's top political priority. They don't even hide their motive, if you were to put them on trial for their bullshit they would lose neigh instantly.

No, if we had... Say... Three or four political parties, and all of them had 25-33% of the power, Obama would be able to get things done.
Because the Republicans would not be able to pull what they're pulling now. They'd be throwing away their own voters and giving them to the third/fourth parties, whilst literally not being able to achieve anything due to the fact that 66% of the vote is outside of their control.
They would have to cooperate, or their efforts to drag down the country would destroy them. Unlike now, wherein they don't have to cooperate because they can fool idiots into thinking the party they're opposing is just as bad.
Wouldn't work with three. "Oh, the Republicans are saying the Democrats are as bad as they are? Means I'm voting for the green party."

We needz the IRV.

I'm afraid we were both slightly wrong; Congress is actually held by two different parties at the moment. The Democrats have majority in Senate, the Republicans in the House. Some of the Republican Congressmen and Congresswomen are very vocal in their opposition toward President Obama's bills, but things aren't getting done because Congress doesn't agree with one another. (Thus contributing to President Obama's on-the-record disappointment with Congress, although it is more directed toward the Republican party.) I apologise for the incorrect statement previously.

You pointed out that the Republicans don't cooperate, but the Democrats aren't, either. When one says yes, the other says no. It's bad on both sides. Also, opposition for purely political reasons is not a new issue that has erupted from this presidency: it's happened with both parties in either position.

My final notes are that not every Republican Congressman or Congresswoman agrees with the most vocal members of their party, not every Democrat agrees with the President, and both are voting yes or no on measures to help create that majority vote, so it's not specifically one party. Members of Congress are elected just as much as the President (and more directly too, I might add), and they are doing their job for which they were elected. The debate is not so much that Congress is barring the President from doing his job, but rather that they're not doing their job well.

[Divine_Malevolence]

tricksyGoodfellow

I'm afraid we were both slightly wrong; Congress is actually held by two different parties at the moment. The Democrats have majority in Senate, the Republicans in the House. Some of the Republican Congressmen and Congresswomen are very vocal in their opposition toward President Obama's bills, but things aren't getting done because Congress doesn't agree with one another. (Thus contributing to President Obama's on-the-record disappointment with Congress, although it is more directed toward the Republican party.) I apologise for the incorrect statement previously.

This would mean something if you didn't need both of the houses of Congress to agree to a single bill to get anything passed, and the fact that Republicans have a singular goal of not allowing anything to pass.
Which puts basically all of the power in their hands. It would be different if Republicans weren't actively trying to destroy the country in a gambit to make Obama look bad and stand a chance in the next election...
But the fact is, they are trying to do just that.

tricksyGoodfellow

You pointed out that the Republicans don't cooperate, but the Democrats aren't, either. When one says yes, the other says no. It's bad on both sides. Also, opposition for purely political reasons is not a new issue that has erupted from this presidency: it's happened with both parties in either position.

This would be accurate if it... Uh... Wasn't.
You do realize that Democrats went so far out of their way as to try and implement a bill that a Republican made and implemented in his state to solve a problem, and not only did no Republicans support it, but they threatened default twice, sent it to the Supreme Court, and shut down the government to try and keep it from coming into effect.... Right?
Because that's a thing that happened.
Democrats pander so much that they're pushing through fully Republican bills and the Republicans still fight them.
What more can a Democrat do to cooperate if the Republicans are going to war against their own ******** bills?

tricksyGoodfellow

My final notes are that not every Republican Congressman or Congresswoman agrees with the most vocal members of their party, not every Democrat agrees with the President, and both are voting yes or no on measures to help create that majority vote, so it's not specifically one party. Members of Congress are elected just as much as the President (and more directly too, I might add), and they are doing their job for which they were elected. The debate is not so much that Congress is barring the President from doing his job, but rather that they're not doing their job well.

Uh...
No.
The vote on the ACA.
You'll notice quite quickly that Democrats have the ability to dissent from the majority opinion, sure. And you'll note that every-
Literally 100% of them-
Republican voted no.



On a bill created by their party.
That multiple Democrats saw as too conservative to support.

Republicans aren't just doing a shitty job. They're going out of their way to not do their jobs, and in the process attempting to keep the President from doing his.
They have, in fact, said as much in front of a camera. What's the number one Republican goal?

It was to make everything so horrible that Obama would lose in 2012 so that they could get their power back. Now it's more to the tune of make everything so horrible that they can try and make it seem like Democrats in general aren't doing so well in 2016, because......
Well....
They're still pulling their bullshit despite Obama's already not allowed to run for a third term.

And don't get me wrong, I understand why they're doing it. If their last two presidents are George Bush Jr. and Sr., and the last two Democrats happened to be Bill ******** Clinton and a successful Barrack Obama, nobody is going to vote Republican when the next election comes.
Right now the name Republican is so synonymous with outright failure that most conservatives refuse to associate with them, and really can't play any cards outside of false equivalence.
If they don't smear the Democratic name to somewhere around that level they're toast. Outright goners.
I'd rather they fix that by actually doing good things for the country..... But they really can't. They're embarrassing themselves by attempting to circumvent law stateside to deny women healthcare and deny minorities the ability to vote. Anyone who tries to do anything reasonable also faces a tea party challenge due to the fact that they gerrymandered so heavily that the only people they have to appeal to are the balls to the wall obey Faux News like a god dipshit Republicans who drank so much of the coolaid they can't see straight are voting for them. So any attempts at actually being a moderate is basically suicide for them right now.

And as such, they can't even change their platform to something that helps the country.
All they can do is ******** everything up and hope that it causes people to look at Obama in a negative light.


And in the meantime, the country.... Well, it doesn't suffer.
It's pretty blatant that things are better under Obama than they were under Bush. Because barely doing anything well is better than doing everything horribly.
But we don't flourish like we should.