• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

"Lawless President"

Mike

Well-known member
Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) denounced the House Republican border bill as a “surrender to a lawless president” because the legislation does not include any language to prevent President Obama from expanding his unilateral legalization of illegal immigrants.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Mike said:
Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) denounced the House Republican border bill as a “surrender to a lawless president” because the legislation does not include any language to prevent President Obama from expanding his unilateral legalization of illegal immigrants.

Easily the most lawless president since Richard Nixon though Nixon was sure he was doing right by the country. This knows good and well what he's doing to fark the country.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Andy Borowitz

By signing 182 executive orders, Barack Obama seems intent on chasing the records of such notorious renegades as Dwight David Eisenhower (484) and Theodore Roosevelt (1,081).
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Andy Borowitz

By signing 182 executive orders, Barack Obama seems intent on chasing the records of such notorious renegades as Dwight David Eisenhower (484) and Theodore Roosevelt (1,081).

And both Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt are your heroes, too.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Soapweed said:
Oldtimer said:
Andy Borowitz

By signing 182 executive orders, Barack Obama seems intent on chasing the records of such notorious renegades as Dwight David Eisenhower (484) and Theodore Roosevelt (1,081).

And both Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt are your heroes, too.

Maybe that's how they got so much accomplished during their terms to be thought of so highly in this day and age - they didn't wait around for the Do Nothings to not act....

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.
~Theodore Roosevelt

Both now rank in the top 10 Presidents in history:
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/uspresidents/tp/toppresidents.htm



Actually if you look back (but I'm sure you don't want real facts to screw up your ideas) -- almost all Presidents used more executive orders than Obama did...


William McKinley 185 (one term)
Theodore Roosevelt 1,081
William Howard Taft 724 (one term)
Woodrow Wilson 1,803
Warren G. Harding 522 (-1 term)
Calvin Coolidge 1,203 (1+ term)
Herbert Hoover 968 (1 term)
Franklin D. Roosevelt 3,522 (3+ terms)
Harry S. Truman 907
Dwight D. Eisenhower 484
John F. Kennedy 214 (1 term)
Lyndon B. Johnson 325
Richard Nixon 346
Gerald R. Ford 169 (-1 term)
Jimmy Carter 320 (1 term)
Ronald Reagan 381
George H. W. Bush 166 (1 term)
William J. Clinton 364
George W. Bush 291
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Actually if you look back (but I'm sure you don't want real facts to screw up your ideas) -- almost all Presidents used more executive orders than Obama did...

:lol:

And Washington used more drugs than obama, but George's were prescription and Barry's were illegal.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Actually if you look back (but I'm sure you don't want real facts to screw up your ideas) -- almost all Presidents used more executive orders than Obama did...

:lol:

And Washington used more drugs than obama, but George's were prescription and Barry's were illegal.


George Washington :???: Who wrote old George's prescriptions- Doctor Spock :roll: :???: :wink:

Until 1914 the only drug outlawed previously by some state laws was alcohol... Even the the 1906 Food and Drug Act was not a drug law...
The 1906 Food and Drug Act enacted-- was strictly a "labeling law"-- only affected misbranded foods and drugs. Main concern was "patent medicines" that could be made up of tar, animal secretions, cocaine, heroin, or whatever and no one would know. As far as the law was concerned, the medicine could contain all of these as long as it was labeled properly.

In 1914 the Harrison Tax Act put a tax on "narcotics"- and made it up to doctors to administer to patients/addicts...

Most narcotics were not made illegal until 1970 under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Controlled Substance Act of 1970)...


So old George had prescriptions for his drugs did he :roll: :p :lol: :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Actually if you look back (but I'm sure you don't want real facts to screw up your ideas) -- almost all Presidents used more executive orders than Obama did...

:lol:

And Washington used more drugs than obama, but George's were prescription and Barry's were illegal.


George Washington :???: Who wrote old George's prescriptions- Doctor Spock :roll: :???: :wink:

Until 1914 the only drug outlawed previously by some state laws was alcohol... Even the the 1906 Food and Drug Act was not a drug law...
The 1906 Food and Drug Act enacted-- was strictly a "labeling law"-- only affected misbranded foods and drugs. Main concern was "patent medicines" that could be made up of tar, animal secretions, cocaine, heroin, or whatever and no one would know. As far as the law was concerned, the medicine could contain all of these as long as it was labeled properly.

In 1914 the Harrison Tax Act put a tax on "narcotics"- and made it up to doctors to administer to patients/addicts...

Most narcotics were not made illegal until 1970 under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Controlled Substance Act of 1970)...


So old George had prescriptions for his drugs did he :roll: :p :lol: :lol:


One of the nation's oldest businesses resides in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia. It is the Stabler-Leadbeater Apothecary. This apothecary was founded in 1792 and did not go out of business until 1931 because of the depression

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1528563

The apothecary's most famous customer was Martha Washington. Washington routinely bought drugs there for herself and for her husband, especially when George was suffering from his eventually fatal illness.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1528563


The concept of prescriptions dates back to the beginning of history. So long as there were medications and a writing system to capture directions for preparation and usage, there were prescriptions.[24]

"Pharmacy in Ancient Babylonia". History of Pharmacy. Washington State University College of Pharmacy. Retrieved 2010-01-22.[dead link]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
:lol:

And Washington used more drugs than obama, but George's were prescription and Barry's were illegal.


George Washington :???: Who wrote old George's prescriptions- Doctor Spock :roll: :???: :wink:

Until 1914 the only drug outlawed previously by some state laws was alcohol... Even the the 1906 Food and Drug Act was not a drug law...
The 1906 Food and Drug Act enacted-- was strictly a "labeling law"-- only affected misbranded foods and drugs. Main concern was "patent medicines" that could be made up of tar, animal secretions, cocaine, heroin, or whatever and no one would know. As far as the law was concerned, the medicine could contain all of these as long as it was labeled properly.

In 1914 the Harrison Tax Act put a tax on "narcotics"- and made it up to doctors to administer to patients/addicts...

Most narcotics were not made illegal until 1970 under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Controlled Substance Act of 1970)...


So old George had prescriptions for his drugs did he :roll: :p :lol: :lol:


One of the nation's oldest businesses resides in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia. It is the Stabler-Leadbeater Apothecary. This apothecary was founded in 1792 and did not go out of business until 1931 because of the depression

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1528563

The apothecary's most famous customer was Martha Washington. Washington routinely bought drugs there for herself and for her husband, especially when George was suffering from his eventually fatal illness.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1528563


The concept of prescriptions dates back to the beginning of history. So long as there were medications and a writing system to capture directions for preparation and usage, there were prescriptions.[24]

"Pharmacy in Ancient Babylonia". History of Pharmacy. Washington State University College of Pharmacy. Retrieved 2010-01-22.[dead link]

You didn't need a prescription or for that matter even a pharmacist- as the snake oil peddlers could provide you with all the laudanum or cocaine/morphine based pain killer and medicine you needed.... And it was perfectly legal...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
So, you agree that Washington may have used more drugs, but they were totally legal and Barry's drug use was not?

Starting to get the point of the analogy yet?

You probably don't know what I'm talking about, so, here is a little help


Analogy (from Greek ἀναλογία, analogia, "proportion"[1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
You're too stupid...

Comparing what an executive order was then vs now would be a total waste of time.

He's not interested in understanding the circumstances or facts about what he's blabbing about. It doesn't matter to him that an executive order was an executive order and not a President trying to write or rewrite the laws of Congress. He's the same guy that believes in "Presidential review" and that Jews and mooselums worship the same God.

All this isn't a stretch for anyone that cannot comprehend the plain language of the second amendment. Seriously, chew on that for a moment. For any individual that can reason the second amendment says anything other than its concise, and very plain language, what else is really all that surprising?

Nothing.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Ok OT, can we agree God is good? I think we can. Can we agree pizza is good? I think so. Does that make God is pizza? Of course not. Do you see where this is going? One executive order naming a park isn't the same as one saying filthy japs should be corralled and captured. But yes, the quantity is equal. My question OT is are you really stupid enough that you weren't intentionally misleading? I can't imagine anyone that stupid.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
Ok OT, can we agree God is good? I think we can. Can we agree pizza is good? I think so. Does that make God is pizza? Of course not. Do you see where this is going? One executive order naming a park isn't the same as one saying filthy japs should be corralled and captured. But yes, the quantity is equal. My question OT is are you really stupid enough that you weren't intentionally misleading? I can't imagine anyone that stupid.

Apparently you haven't went back and read thru some of the previous executive orders that did such things as free the slaves (Emancipation Proclamation), set up the EPA, the W.P.A. program during the Depression, the desegregation of the military, the detention of 110,000 Japanese during WWII, the creation of numerous Indian Reservations, called out the militia to go against American citizens and put down the Whiskey Rebellion, called up troops and began the Civil War, desegregation of schools and sending in troops and marshals to enforce it, created the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, Pardoned Presidents and other political appointees that were convicted or about to be convicted of crimes - plus thousands of hirings of patronage jobs- or giving folks special exemptions from a law or rule, etc. etc...

Here is a very interesting part of an article I found on the very conservative The Heritage Foundation website outlining the powers of the President:

Commander in Chief.15 The President's power as Commander in Chief is limited by other constitutional powers granted to Congress, such as the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, make rules (i.e., laws) for the regulation of the armed forces, and provide for calling forth the militia of the several states. However, the President's power as military commander is still very broad with respect to the armed forces at his disposal, including some situations in which Congress has not acted to declare war.

Head of State.16 The President is solely responsible for carrying out foreign policy, which includes the sole power to recognize foreign governments, receive foreign ambassadors, and negotiate treaties. Congress may enact laws affecting foreign policy, and two-thirds of the Senate must ratify any treaty before it becomes binding law, but Congress must still leave the execution of foreign policy and diplomatic relations to the President.


Chief Law Enforcement Officer. The President has the sole constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"17 and this grants him broad discretion over federal law enforcement decisions. He has not only the power, but also the responsibility to see that the Constitution and laws are interpreted correctly.18 In addition, the President has absolute prosecutorial discretion in declining to bring criminal indictments. As in the exercise of any other constitutional power, one may argue that a particular President is "abusing his discretion," but even in such a case, he cannot be compelled to prosecute any criminal charges.

Head of the Executive Branch. The Framers debated and rejected the creation of a plural executive. They selected a "unitary executive" and determined that he alone would be vested with "[t]he executive power" of Article II. After much debate, the Framers also determined that the President would nominate and appoint (with the Senate's consent in some cases) all officers in the executive branch. With very few exceptions, all appointed officials who work in the executive branch serve at the will and pleasure of the President, even if Congress has specified a term of years for a particular office.19 All of this was designed to ensure the President's control over officials in the executive branch20 and to promote "energy in the executive."21

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

When the President is lawfully exercising one of these functions,22 the scope of his power to issue written directives is exceedingly broad. In short, he may issue or execute whatever written directives, orders, guidelines (such as prosecutorial guidelines or nondiscriminatory enforcement policies), communiqués, dispatches, or other instructions he deems appropriate.

The President also may issue directives in the exercise of his statutorily delegated authority, unless Congress has specified in law that the statutory power may be exercised only in a particular way. A few examples of Congress's conditional grant of statutory authority are mentioned herein, but as previously explained, there are limits to how far Congress can go in an attempt to micromanage even the President's statutorily delegated authority.23 For example, Congress can grant the President (or his Attorney General) the authority to deport certain illegal aliens, but it cannot attempt to retain a veto over the final decision as it tried to do in the Immigration and Nationality Act.24

In sum, a President has broad discretion to use written directives when he is lawfully exercising one of his constitutional or statutorily delegated powers. Any broad power or discretion can be abused, but it would be wrong to confuse such potential or real abuse with the many legitimate uses.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives

As you will see- Presidents have a lot of authority over law enforcement issues- and just like the Sheriff (the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county) has broad discretion over enforcement- so does the President as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the nation...
 

Mike

Well-known member
OT wrote:
previous executive orders that did such things as free the slaves (Emancipation Proclamation),

Correction:

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free "The" slaves. It freed only the slaves in the states that seceded. Not the slaves in the Northern or Western states.

You see, it was done to punish the Southern states, not to free the slaves per se.
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

Just a little history lesson. :roll:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
As you will see- Presidents have a lot of authority over law enforcement issues- and just like the Sheriff (the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county) has broad discretion over enforcement- so does the President as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the nation...

OT, when will you realize that NO ONE is impressed that you were once sheriff....NO ONE. Believe me when I say this. We don't give a ****.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
As you will see- Presidents have a lot of authority over law enforcement issues- and just like the Sheriff (the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county) has broad discretion over enforcement- so does the President as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the nation...

OT, when will you realize that NO ONE is impressed that you were once sheriff....NO ONE. Believe me when I say this. We don't give a s***.

Sure doesn't say much for the intelligence of the people in Valley County either. :roll:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
He sure didn't STAY sheriff very long. Like Jimmy Carter, Old Whisky Eyes was a one term wonder. Otherwise, he was Barney Fife.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
He sure didn't STAY sheriff very long.

Of course not. I can only imagine that he was insufferable beyond belief, drunken with the 'power' of the office.

Just re-read the sentence he wrote......he's trying to equate his duties as sheriff as somehow having the same gravity as that of the president of the united states.

The only gravity involved is that fat ass of his.
 
Top