Originally posted by sasquatch672So far, no liberal has acknowledge he's becoming a dictator.
Obama has proven that he is a tyrant. I wish he'd get himself one of those fancy fake military uniforms with the shoulder boards and the medals, like his buddies Qaddafi and Noriega.
So far, all their counter-arguments have been "but his policies are good".
I wonder, do they think he's a benevolent dictator and for that reason they're willing to accept it, or do any of them deny that he's becoming a dictator.
Originally posted by bill718Bill this post just doesn't make any sense. In one sense it does. You expect someone to take care of people. That's why you love the government. But conservatives don't worship corporations, while liberals do indeed worship government. If you doubt that statement, consider this: the anger on this very site when government is questioned; the withering attacks on individuals who disdain Obama, the head of the government Church (Barbara Walters even said - on tape - that "we were all expecting a Messiah"😉; the fervor with which Obama was greeted - an almost religious zeal with cultish behaviors; and I could go on. But you see my point, I'm sure.
Interesting post, and yes, it may be a smart political move, but lost in all this babble about Obamacare is the fact that millions of hard working Americans have no healthcare coverage, and The ACA will go a long way in addressing this need. It's too bad so many American's worship the almighty corporation above God, and have lost sight of the fact that many ...[text shortened]... pend an extra penny of it to cover their employees (except for upper management...of course!) 😏
Originally posted by techsouthMuch worse than that. They're so convinced of their own righteousness that the ends justify the means. It's the same liberal fascism that accompanied every significant left-wing political movement of the 20th century.
So far, no liberal has acknowledge he's becoming a dictator.
So far, all their counter-arguments have been "but his policies are good".
I wonder, do they think he's a benevolent dictator and for that reason they're willing to accept it, or do any of them deny that he's becoming a dictator.
Originally posted by sasquatch672"It's the same liberal fascism that accompanied every significant left-wing political movement of the 20th century."
Much worse than that. They're so convinced of their own righteousness that the ends justify the means. It's the same liberal fascism that accompanied every significant left-wing political movement of the 20th century.
The heart of liberal, progressive, socialist, communist politics and philosophy.
Originally posted by techsouthI suppose the definition of "dictator" has shifted to "elected officials whose policies I don't like."
So far, no liberal has acknowledge he's becoming a dictator.
So far, all their counter-arguments have been "but his policies are good".
I wonder, do they think he's a benevolent dictator and for that reason they're willing to accept it, or do any of them deny that he's becoming a dictator.
Originally posted by normbenignObama has not issued particularly many Executive Orders (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order). The practise is long-established and Congress has had ample opportunity to limit the President's power to issue Executive Orders. In addition, Congress can at any time impeach Obama, and the people have given him a limited mandate. In short, this whining about Obama being a "dictator" is hysterical crybaby material.
Only when his policies are implemented by circumventing Congress.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAny President whose party holds one house of Congress is virtually impeachment immune.
Obama has not issued particularly many Executive Orders (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order). The practise is long-established and Congress has had ample opportunity to limit the President's power to issue Executive Orders. In addition, Congress can at any time impeach Obama, and the people have given him a limited mandate. In short, this whining about Obama being a "dictator" is hysterical crybaby material.
The problem really seems to be the President's loose lips, bragging he would circumvent Congress, threatening them to get in line. There are limits to what EOs can accomplish.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAre you really trying to dumb down the argument this much???
I suppose the definition of "dictator" has shifted to "elected officials whose policies I don't like."
You're making a point that I suppose a middle school student would be proud of himself for coming up with. But everything is not solely a matter which side your bias is on. If that's all you're capable of seeing of those with whom you disagree, then we're not going to have a very stimulating conversation. And even worse, you're going to follow blindly those who master the rhetoric of socialism.
I keep hoping against hope to come across people with different world views that will actually engage in stimulating conversation, including some disagreements. But the idea that bias might affect someone's perspective is something I figured out more than 30 years ago. But since then, I've figured out a few more things too.
The narrative I put forth offers a lot more to think about than "I don't like the policies." I don't like ObamaCare, but I recognized it was passed by due process of elected officials who were legitimately elected. The right to grant "waivers" is a power assumed by one man.
It is disappointing that so many refuse to see the dangers of giving one man the power to grant "waivers" to a burdensome law. I guess people like you would be instrumental for the rise of many dictators throughout history.
Originally posted by techsouthWhat "side" am I on? I'm not an Obama supporter and have never said or implied that I am. Nor do I agree with the US system of Executive Orders; indeed, as I have stated on these forums already, I would say that the President has far too much power. If I were in charge, I would reform the system such that Congresspeople are elected through proportional representation without voting districts, ban campaign donations above $10 and reduce the President's role to a mainly ceremonial one.
Are you really trying to dumb down the argument this much???
You're making a point that I suppose a middle school student would be proud of himself for coming up with. But [b]everything is not solely a matter which side your bias is on. If that's all you're capable of seeing of those with whom you disagree, then we're not going to have a very stim ...[text shortened]... I guess people like you would be instrumental for the rise of many dictators throughout history.[/b]
Having said that, the executive branch of government is always going to need some leeway in applying laws. Laws might not be specific enough in certain specific circumstances, or there might be practical considerations which force the executive branch to change or delay certain aspects of a law. In these cases conflicts with the legislative or judicial branches might arise, which can be resolved through appropriate means.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf that's your view, then why the thought stopping reply?
What "side" am I on? I'm not an Obama supporter and have never said or implied that I am. Nor do I agree with the US system of Executive Orders; indeed, as I have stated on these forums already, I would say that the President has far too much power. If I were in charge, I would reform the system such that Congresspeople are elected through proportional ...[text shortened]... e legislative or judicial branches might arise, which can be resolved through appropriate means.
I can understand the call for leeway. I'm in favor of even the police having some leeway.
But the magnitude of the "leeway" Obama is taking is colossal and an incredibly corrupting force. Whether you're for small amount of "leeway" plus or minus some tolerance, you have to admit that at some point it could theoretically become dictator-esque. And I contend that Obama has gone well beyond a little "leeway" in any reasonable sense of the word.
Do you suppose the "waivers" Obama has given some unions are motivated by politics as all? What about those that did not get "waivers"? Do they have a legitimate complaint that they are being subject to arbitrary rule of man instead of rule of law? Should they just give more campaign contributions and then ask for waivers?
Originally posted by techsouth"So far, all their counter-arguments have been "but his policies are good"."
So far, no liberal has acknowledge he's becoming a dictator.
So far, all their counter-arguments have been "but his policies are good".
I wonder, do they think he's a benevolent dictator and for that reason they're willing to accept it, or do any of them deny that he's becoming a dictator.
That is a variation of "the end justifies the means", ever popular on the left. Frankly, his bark is worse than his bite. Most of the changes he's made to Obama care, were suggested by Republicans. He did what Clinton did, declaring and "end to welfare as we know it". Or as LBJ did, when the nation clamoured for Civil Rights legislation, signing on to a bill which he fought when it was a Republican initiative under Eisenhower.
Originally posted by techsouthIf your problem is with Executive Orders, why not just say so without resorting to kindergarten rhetoric? All I see is a half-assed law that was implemented poorly and is experiencing delays as a result.
If that's your view, then why the thought stopping reply?
I can understand the call for leeway. I'm in favor of even the police having some leeway.
But the magnitude of the "leeway" Obama is taking is colossal and an incredibly corrupting force. Whether you're for small amount of "leeway" plus or minus some tolerance, you have to admit that at [b]s ...[text shortened]... ead of rule of law? Should they just give more campaign contributions and then ask for waivers?
While you're at it, can you explain why you have a problem with them now even though they are an established practise for over 100 years? And what do you intend to replace them with?