I do what I wanna do, **** it.

[Superman]

FDR's EOs:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=1933

The Bomma's EOs:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=2015&Submit=DISPLAY

HUGE difference not only in number, but meaning behind.

 

[Tibs]

The fact is Obama has done nothing - in either breadth or scope - that presidents before him haven't done. You guys are so frothed-at-the-mouth in your Obama-hatred, that you've stopped seeing clearly (presuming you did at some point in the past) and have succumbed to the myriad of right-wing conspiracies, falsities, exaggerations, half-truths and more than anything, fear mongering. Which makes all the sense in the world seeing the support Trump has on this board.

 

[deljzc]

I think the hard-core interpretation of the 2nd amendment is on the wrong side of history. Just like I think other right-wing issues like gay marriage and abortion are on the wrong side of history too.

100 years from now, the idea a "well regulated militia" with arms shall be able to defend states against the federal government is ludicrous. I think it's ludicrous now.

Back in 1790, this was the foundation of a debate (at the time) between federalists and anti-federalists. But our country has continued to evolve ON EVERY OTHER ISSUE to be more federal and central government based. Why can't we look debate the gun issue (amendment 2) in the same terms as other federal powers? Amendment 14 in 1866 (as part of reclamation) clearly changed our country in the wake of our Civil War to be more uniform and not just individual states doing what they want. In many ways Amendment 14 contradicts much of the original founding fathers envisioned about our country, but it was necessary as we evolved from and 18th century agriculture economy with 4 million residents to 30 million in 1860 to 150 million in 1950 to 300+ million now.

We are not in an era of "States" being independent. There is too much trade, travel, communication, etc. to allow state powers nearly as much as what the founding fathers debated in 1790. It's just insane to think otherwise.

The whole debate about the right to bear arms and state militias in 1790 was about STATES vs. FEDERAL government, not citizens vs. government like the right-wing wants you to believe. That is completely a wrong interpretation of the debate at the time.

I just don't get it. A revolution against a government will not happen like it did in the 18th century in America or France. It will not be based on firepower of the citizens (and lack of firepower central governments had). It will be based on who really controls the military and how it acts against it's own citizens. If you right-wing fanatics really think a war against our government is even feasible with any amount of assault weapons, you are crazy. The type of firepower and technology the government has could kill us all 10-times over. Revolution will have to come from much more peaceful means of protest. And why freedom of the press, assembly and speech are much more important weapons against the government than any firearm. That will only be more-so in the future.

 

[Vader]

The fact is Obama has done nothing - in either breadth or scope - that presidents before him haven't done. You guys are so frothed-at-the-mouth in your Obama-hatred, that you've stopped seeing clearly (presuming you did at some point in the past) and have succumbed to the myriad of right-wing conspiracies, falsities, exaggerations, half-truths and more than anything, fear mongering. Which makes all the sense in the world seeing the support Trump has on this board.

Fact is you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You posted something that was idiotic and wrong. I pointed it out. Now you go off on your typical liberal attacks but using no facts because you're been exposed as ignorant on this issue. But that's what liberals do. Get called out then start calling people names. Typical liberal bullshit.

 

[Vader]

I think the hard-core interpretation of the 2nd amendment is on the wrong side of history. Just like I think other right-wing issues like gay marriage and abortion are on the wrong side of history too.

I think the entire constitution is on the wrong side of history. So let's do away with it and allow anti-constitutionalist like yourself to just do whatever the **** you want to. We don't need a constitution. We just need brilliant minds like yourself to tell us what we need without having to interpret a document. I suggest we get rid of the 1st amendment and only allow PC speech that doesn't hurt anyone except conservatives. The list never ends. It will make the country great.

 

[Tibs]

Fact is you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You posted something that was idiotic and wrong. I pointed it out. Now you go off on your typical liberal attacks but using no facts because you're been exposed as ignorant on this issue. But that's what liberals do. Get called out then start calling people names. Typical liberal bullshit.

If you had even half a brain you would have figured out that both charts, mine as well as yours (see summary here > http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php) shows exactly the same thing, that Obama has averaged roughly 33 EO's per year in office. But go ahead, knock yourself out patting yourself on the back. Keep spewing your hateful bile as that's what your ilk does. It's a tradition around here, that the biggest ******** on the board keep working on their game in a battle of one-upmanship to see who takes the title. You've got a ways to go to catch IndySteel, but don't give up now, you never know how things will turn out.

 

[Vader]

If you had even half a brain you would have figured out that both charts, mine as well as yours (see summary here > http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php) shows exactly the same thing, that Obama has averaged roughly 33 EO's per year in office. But go ahead, knock yourself out patting yourself on the back. Keep spewing your hateful bile as that's what your ilk does. It's a tradition around here, that the biggest ******** on the board keep working on their game in a battle of one-upmanship to see who takes the title. You've got a ways to go to catch IndySteel, but don't give up now, you never know how things will turn out.

You're such a child. I didn't list a chart so I have no idea what you are talking about. You came in here talking about EOs and that BHO didn't have that many. I correctly pointed out that he used EMs which allowed him to do the same things as EOs without have to list them as EOs. Obviously you didn't know about them and are now trying to do the typical smear and ***** campaign. You're nothing but a troll and liberal elite *** hole. You come in here from time to time to ***** and moan about the treatment of BHO. Fact is you're an ignorant little man trying to defend the indefensible. I'd expect nothing less from a banal egotist like yourself.

 

[Steelin]

The thing that is so ironical is how the gun grabbers keep saying let's have "reasonable" measures put in place. There is nothing reasonable about a doctor being able to have the power to have someone's gun rights removed. Also, the incremental steps to whittle away at law abiding citizens rights is just the frog in the boiling water scenario. Oh you won't mind if we just make this little change will you? Be reasonable. BS!!!

 

[ark steel]

I think the hard-core interpretation of the 2nd amendment is on the wrong side of history. Just like I think other right-wing issues like gay marriage and abortion are on the wrong side of history too.

100 years from now, the idea a "well regulated militia" with arms shall be able to defend states against the federal government is ludicrous. I think it's ludicrous now.

Back in 1790, this was the foundation of a debate (at the time) between federalists and anti-federalists. But our country has continued to evolve ON EVERY OTHER ISSUE to be more federal and central government based. Why can't we look debate the gun issue (amendment 2) in the same terms as other federal powers? Amendment 14 in 1866 (as part of reclamation) clearly changed our country in the wake of our Civil War to be more uniform and not just individual states doing what they want. In many ways Amendment 14 contradicts much of the original founding fathers envisioned about our country, but it was necessary as we evolved from and 18th century agriculture economy with 4 million residents to 30 million in 1860 to 150 million in 1950 to 300+ million now.

We are not in an era of "States" being independent. There is too much trade, travel, communication, etc. to allow state powers nearly as much as what the founding fathers debated in 1790. It's just insane to think otherwise.

The whole debate about the right to bear arms and state militias in 1790 was about STATES vs. FEDERAL government, not citizens vs. government like the right-wing wants you to believe. That is completely a wrong interpretation of the debate at the time.

I just don't get it. A revolution against a government will not happen like it did in the 18th century in America or France. It will not be based on firepower of the citizens (and lack of firepower central governments had). It will be based on who really controls the military and how it acts against it's own citizens. If you right-wing fanatics really think a war against our government is even feasible with any amount of assault weapons, you are crazy. The type of firepower and technology the government has could kill us all 10-times over. Revolution will have to come from much more peaceful means of protest. And why freedom of the press, assembly and speech are much more important weapons against the government than any firearm. That will only be more-so in the future.

Just to address the bolded part, it means we have been doing it more and more wrong along the way. No reason to continues ******* that up.

 

[Tibs]

I'd expect nothing less from a banal egotist like yourself.

Man, that's awesome, thank you! I kinda laughed out loud, I'll give you that.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Liberals are in 2 categories, liars, and misinformed. The leadership are liars. The followers are misinformed because they base their opinions on lies. The frustrating part is that they proudly spout the lies as if they are rational thinkers.

Liberals accept climate research which has been PROVEN to be false or fabricated and they will shout you down and call you dumb if you point out that the science is junk.

Then in the next breathe they will read a phrase like "shall not be infringed" and they'll say "that can mean anything, who is to say?"

So there you have the core fault with liberals. They simply don't like reality.

Here's another example. They constantly whine that the NRA is unreasonable and gun owners are clinging to a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That's a lie. There has already been tons of compromise, as evidenced by the fact that there are tons of restrictions on gun ownership. there are bans on automatic weapons, background checks, permits, etc. None of that is in the constitution but it has all been accepted as reasonable compromise.

So how much has the left compromised on abortion?. It is still legal to deliver a viable fetus and let it die on a table. O voted specifically to keep that legal. Liberals even fight against the restriction of performing abortion on minor. They fight against informing the parents of minors. They fight against the doctor simply explaining that there are other options. And they force tax payers to pay for abortions. Imagine if the NRA opened centers where they provided free guns to low income people at tax payer expense.

Now tell me who is reasonable and who are the facists.

 

[ark steel]

The whole debate about the right to bear arms and state militias in 1790 was about STATES vs. FEDERAL government, not citizens vs. government like the right-wing wants you to believe. That is completely a wrong interpretation of the debate at the time

I disagree. It was, in part, about States versus Federal, but the overall debate was about INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS, particular those which should not be infringed upon by a strong central government. If it was about States versus Federal as you state why do the other amendments say:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, 7 of the first 10 amendments specifically refer to "the people" as a group or as an individual. Two (7th and 8th) do not say "the people" but it is abundantly clear that it means people or an individual. So, 9 of the 10 first amendments refer to individual rights, but the 2nd one, for whatever reason does not?

The last one, specifically, uses "the States" and "the people" as two different terms making it CLEAR, that "the people" should be, in no way interpreted to mean "the States".

So, that brings us back around to the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't know how much more clear "shall not be infringed" can be.

Caveat: I copied these directly from http://usgovinfo.about.com/blfirstbor.htm. I assume they are verbatim, but I did not spend any time looking at other sites and checking word for word or even making sure they are in the right order.

 

[ark steel]

Liberals are in 2 categories, liars, and misinformed. The leadership are liars. The followers are misinformed because they base their opinions on lies. The frustrating part is that they proudly spout the lies as if they are rational thinkers.

Liberals accept climate research which has been PROVEN to be false or fabricated and they will shout you down and call you dumb if you point out that the science is junk.

Then in the next breathe they will read a phrase like "shall not be infringed" and they'll say "that can mean anything, who is to say?"

So there you have the core fault with liberals. They simply don't like reality.

Here's another example. They constantly whine that the NRA is unreasonable and gun owners are clinging to a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That's a lie. There has already been tons of compromise, as evidenced by the fact that there are tons of restrictions on gun ownership. there are bans on automatic weapons, background checks, permits, etc. None of that is in the constitution but it has all been accepted as reasonable compromise.

So how much has the left compromised on abortion?. It is still legal to deliver a viable fetus and let it die on a table. O voted specifically to keep that legal. Liberals even fight against the restriction of performing abortion on minor. They fight against informing the parents of minors. They fight against the doctor simply explaining that there are other options. And they force tax payers to pay for abortions. Imagine if the NRA opened centers where they provided free guns to low income people at tax payer expense.

Now tell me who is reasonable and who are the facists.

Don't forget that part of the reason abortion was considered that it should be legal is due to the privacy issue between the doctor and the patient. But when it comes to gun control, that privacy means, well, nothing.

 

[Superman]

ark is a racist *******. Bomma cries for your soul.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

There's no winning on the gun issue because neither side wants to solve the problem.

The NFL. They had a serious problem with people running onto the field. So they stopped showing it on TV. Guess what happened? People still do it, but not nearly as many.

Stop showing/glorifying the crazy shooters. Put their ***** in the crawl. Don't show their pictures or publish their names, like they do sex accusers.

Legalize drugs. End the war and the killing associated with it.

Stop trying to attach a stigma to mental health by banning people who have seen a therapist from owning firearms. This DISCOURAGES people from getting help. Saw this plenty of times in the Army.

De regulate the carrying of firearms and ENCOURAGE OPEN CARRY. An armed society is a safe society. Not only is this a tremendous deterrent to crime, it will ease the stigma and fear surrounding firearms. Moreover, taking away the fascistic "stop and frisk" privileges from cops by legalizing carry and dope would minimize alot of the harassment and violence between cops and citizens.

These things would actually fix most of the gun violence problems. They would square the law with the constitution. They are pragmatic and entirely doable. Which is why they'll never happen. This debate is too valuable as a football to kick around by the Left and Right. They keep us fighting each other, nothing gets done, and they stay in power.

 

[deljzc]

I think there are about 10 people here that need to travel to Oregon to join those crazy, gun-toting "Government is out to get us" lunatics that are all (hopefully) headed to jail for breaking the law.

If enough of you guys all head to Oregon, maybe we can wipe you all clean in one fell swoop. Make sure to take your bibles and quote God all the time.

 

[hamster]

I think there are about 10 people here that need to travel to Oregon to join those crazy, gun-toting "Government is out to get us" lunatics that are all (hopefully) headed to jail for breaking the law.

If enough of you guys all head to Oregon, maybe we can wipe you all clean in one fell swoop. Make sure to take your bibles and quote God all the time.

I believe that over 200 years ago, a few people took similar action, and ended up with a Declaration of Independence. Doesn't mean it can never happen again.

 

[hamster]

Let me take a moment to let you guys know a little about myself, about what a ******* mindless liberal weenie I am.
.

Tibs, your family history is to be applauded.

The American values that you claim are different, in part, than mine. Over the past 60 years, I have seen liberal policies turn most of our large cities into crime ridden cesspools, of baby mommas and hyena kids running amok. Here in Pittsburgh, there are shooting deaths every night, and it has nothing to do with legal gun owners. It is the underclass, spawned by LBJ's Great Society, where nobody ever, ever takes personal responsibillity. Where we have an immigrant class that has no intention of assimilating, but is here for the free stuff......and to call them out is considered racist. We now live in a country where our Gov't(Rep and Dem) overstep their legal authority, with impunity. Our national debt........well....just **** it.

If you are spreading the values of the US liberal class,in our society, then stop it , right now. You aren't doing them a favor.

 

[Tibs]

If you are spreading the values of the US liberal class,in our society, then stop it , right now. You aren't doing them a favor.

Hmm, what I wrote:

The basic tenet of getting ahead based on a little bit of talent and a lot of hard work.

Having a 'can-do' attitude... Protestant work ethic

So when you say...

The American values that you claim are different, in part, than mine.

What are your values that are so different than that?

 

[deljzc]

I believe that over 200 years ago, a few people took similar action, and ended up with a Declaration of Independence. Doesn't mean it can never happen again.

Do you really have delusions of grandeur to the point you think you are equivalent to the founding fathers in their battle of independence against Great Britain? Really?

What a load of horse ****.

 

[IndySteel]

When President Trump overturns all of Obama's commie bullshit with his own Executive Orders I expect libtard fucknuts like ribs to stay silent, because Odumma has set the precedent. And ribs, while your parents efforts are admirable, I'm surprised that they raised such a stupid ******* commie like you. They must have ignored you a lot or dropped you on your stupid ******* commie head too many times.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

Tibs, your family history is to be applauded.

The American values that you claim are different, in part, than mine. Over the past 60 years, I have seen liberal policies turn most of our large cities into crime ridden cesspools, of baby mommas and hyena kids running amok. Here in Pittsburgh, there are shooting deaths every night, and it has nothing to do with legal gun owners. It is the underclass, spawned by LBJ's Great Society, where nobody ever, ever takes personal responsibillity. Where we have an immigrant class that has no intention of assimilating, but is here for the free stuff......and to call them out is considered racist. We now live in a country where our Gov't(Rep and Dem) overstep their legal authority, with impunity. Our national debt........well....just **** it.

If you are spreading the values of the US liberal class,in our society, then stop it , right now. You aren't doing them a favor.

There are alot of holes in this, but I want to focus on your targeting of "liberals".

I agree that the left's welfare state has done poor Americans a great disservice. But so too has the right's war on drugs.

I agree that some of LBJs policies have harmed the country. But so did Nixon's.

I agree that personal responsibility is a problem politically, but blanket deregulation has the same effect as welfare: it gives wrong doers impunity.

Viewing our problems as you do, that one side is good and the other bad, is much of WHY the problems themselves persist. You are being USED by the right. To attack your fellow American rather than to problem solve. We two major theories in politics today:

1) Pie in the sky liberalism. Everything can be had and had for free.

2) Easy Answer conservatism. Even the most complex issue can be boiled down to a three word slogan.

Neither side is productive or helpful to the overall success of our nation, which is largely coasting on it's previous successes having become the world's only super power. The politicians are universally emotionally uninvolved and profiteer from the conflict rather than seeking resolution. In places like Brazil or Sweden, people see their fellow citizens as "us". Americans see their fellow Americans as "them".

The problems we have are absolutely fixable. But people would rather get on a forum and call each other names than try to fix things. Bigots, feminists, hate mongers, socialist hippies, and other useless characters (or opportunists) gain center stage while responsible critical thinkers are shoved into the background. Thus the Faustian Bargain of Hillary/Trump is all that's in the offing. No REAL solution oriented choices are made available because any reasoned discussion is stifled by the **** hurling monkeys.

 

[Tibs]

When President Trump overturns all of Obama's commie bullshit with his own Executive Orders I expect libtard fucknuts like ribs to stay silent, because Odumma has set the precedent. And ribs, while your parents efforts are admirable, I'm surprised that they raised such a stupid ******* commie like you. They must have ignored you a lot or dropped you on your stupid ******* commie head too many times.

Exhibit A of what a ****-sucking **** you truly are Indy. Every day is a sad day when you wake up. So much ****-sucking to do, so little time. Hang in there buddy...

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The fact is Obama has done nothing - in either breadth or scope - that presidents before him haven't done. You guys are so frothed-at-the-mouth in your Obama-hatred, that you've stopped seeing clearly (presuming you did at some point in the past) and have succumbed to the myriad of right-wing conspiracies, falsities, exaggerations, half-truths and more than anything, fear mongering. Which makes all the sense in the world seeing the support Trump has on this board.

Difference is that Bomma uses EO's to deliberately work around Congress because Congress represents the people, who He despises. Bomma hasn't met with the Congressional Black Caucus, which is 100% Democrat last I looked, in years. Libs can bag on the Republicans in Congress and the Tea Party BUT they were elected by a majority of like-minded people. Are their opinions worth any more or any less than Liberals in Congress who were elected by a majority of like-minded people? Or should Conservative issues and ideals be "worked around" because they are wrong since they disagree with Liberals in Congress and the President?

 

[Tibs]

Are their opinions worth any more or any less than Liberals in Congress who were elected by a majority of like-minded people? Or should Conservative issues and ideals be "worked around" because they are wrong since they disagree with Liberals in Congress and the President?

No, there should be rational discourse between both sides until a consenus is reached. That's how I'd prefer the government to work. Since that basically never happens, I understand that presidents pass executive orders on occasion. The irony of the backlash against Obama is obviously the total disfunction of the Republicans in the House and Senate that spent years opposing anything - and literally everything - brought up by the President or the Democrats. Look at the voting record over the past 6-7 years. The notion that Obama may look to move on issues that have been bottlenecked for years in Congress, yet arguably have merit and support across the nation, well, that doesn't shock or alarm me. Obama has represented - fairly openly, during his entire tenure - a progressive stance in politics. A large segment of the country elected him president - two times around. He surely has the right - and responsibility - to stand on the issues that got him elected.

No worries, Obama will be gone in a blink of an eye and we'll all have something else to talk - mope - about. Cheers!