The Obama Thread - Original Vintage Edition

[jaxxx]

...
and in terms of federal regulations, this administration has actually eliminated more regulations than it has proposed.
...

Is this true? I'd like to see some data on this claim. I find this absurd when considering: Wall Street bailouts, mortgage reforms, Auto Bailouts, multiple Czars, the TSA, Customs and Boarder agencies, Environmental positions, Oil policies, close to 50 million people on food stamps etc...

[gwanjis54]

oi! i am so tired of the lies.

azraelle, show me now, and i mean now, one example of how this President has violated the Constitution. and how preposterous, no, F****** laughable, your suggestion he would violate the 22nd amendment and stay in power after a 2nd term. and, by the way, you stupid idiot, the President can't nullify an amendment. it has to be repealed by a majority of states. moron. read the Constitution before you tell lies.

so to the last post, some facts. yes, there are almost 50 million people on food stamps, but that number actuallly increased by 14.7 million during the Bush administration and 14.2 million by Obama.

the TSA was founded under the Bush adminsitration.

one example of an Obama oush back on regulation: in November of 2011, the EPA proposed a series of regualtions that would tighten smog regulations. Obama pushed back, and the regs were withdrawn. go to the OMB website for more.

i have no problems with people who disagree with the Presdient based on truth and genuine ideoological differences. but if you lie, i will call you out and take you down.

just saying.

[ZiaAries]

gwanjis54? Has anyone called you a "stupid idiot" in this thread? Please, let's don't lower the level of discussion with that sort of thing. By the way, most of us have done it at one time or the other, I have, but it never scores any points when we do that. Just saying. BTW, we've had some real nasty people in this thread. They were probably nasty before they posted here, however, any disagreement in opinion, they really slung the mud. I feel that if we'd never gotten to the name calling and the attempts to berate the other, not only would we have learned something from each other that would have been positive, but those people would still be contributing members on FF. Fortunately, the worst of the offenders were banned/locked out of FF.

Are you an American living/working in France?





Good to see you back Azraelle and jaxxx.

Looks like our Secret Services has redefined the meaning of secret services.

[azraelle]

Quoting Andrew Napolitano:

“If the President had said ‘it’s constitutional and it would be foolish and wrong for the court to invalidate it,’ that’s a perfectly legitimate argument for the President to make,” explained Napolitano. “He didn’t say that. He said the court is without authority to invalidate this statute. That is an unacceptable, utterly inaccurate absurd statement to come from a President, from a lawyer, from a former professor of constitutional law who taught this very subject at one of the best schools in the country.”

More examples:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/53 ... e.html.csp

One of the most extraordinary documents in human history -- the Bill of Rights -- has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the "legal" right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.

In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year's Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.

This is the law that will cement Obama's legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America's pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany's war crimes look like child's play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming "impeachment!"

http://seguingazette.com/opinion/commun ... 3ce6c.html

[Big Ben]

Azraelle, what do you think about o'bumma trying to intimidate the Supreme Court in their upcoming ruling on the constitutionality of o'bummacare? Does it shows lack of respect for the separation of powers?

Zia, it looks like the Secret Service failed in their attempts to be serviced secretly!

[gwanjis54]

hey, ben

there was no more an egregious abuse of separation of powers than when the conservative supreme court threw out hundreds of legitimate ballots cast for VP Gore in 2000 and handed the election to President Bush. bet you didn't have much to say about that.

[Big Ben]

The Supreme Court didn't throw out votes, but they should have allowed a recount.

But that doesn't excuse o'bumma from trying to intimidate the Supreme Court.

[gwanjis54]

where do you get that he's trying to intimidate the supreme court?

[azraelle]

where do you get that he's trying to intimidate the supreme court?

Quoting Andrew Napolitano:

“If the President had said ‘it’s constitutional and it would be foolish and wrong for the court to invalidate it,’ that’s a perfectly legitimate argument for the President to make,” explained Napolitano. “He didn’t say that. He said the court is without authority to invalidate this statute. That is an unacceptable, utterly inaccurate absurd statement to come from a President, from a lawyer, from a former professor of constitutional law who taught this very subject at one of the best schools in the country.”

It shows a complete disregard for the American Constitution that is holding everybody back from his European Socialistic ideal. Echoed in Caroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O30-vchH ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6ZJxDbF ... re=related

And then there's this:
Does it Matter if Obama Beats Romney? Does it Matter if Hollande Beats Sarkozy?

if Romney is elected, four years from now the US may face the disastrous choice of Hillary Clinton vs. four more years of Romney. That thought alone should be enough to make any sensible US citizen throw up....

...Thus, short of a miracle finish by Ron Paul, the actual best hope for a sensible Republican candidate who appeals to the middle and the independents just might be four more years of Obama.

[gwanjis54]

andrew napolitano from fox news? now there's an objective source!

i think alot of the republican talent, and there is some out there, smart centrists such as christie from new jersey, maybe mitch daniels from indiana, are sitting this one out so they can have a crack at whomever succeeds obama on the democratic side. hilary may run, who knows?

[azraelle]

andrew napolitano from fox news? now there's an objective source!

i think alot of the republican talent, and there is some out there, smart centrists such as christie from new jersey, maybe mitch daniels from indiana, are sitting this one out so they can have a crack at whomever succeeds obama on the democratic side. hilary may run, who knows?

Since when does the source matter when what the source SAYS is inarguably factual based on verifiable video from Obama's own mouth?

Methinks YOU are the idiot here. Are you sure that you aren't one and the same with a certain Seattle-based leftist lawyer that was banned from this site about 2 years ago?

[gwanjis54]

i thought we were not callng each other names here, my friend. hmmm.bb

at any rate, from thePresident's signing statement for the ndaa (which is basically the same bill president bush signed to establish the nuaf. same idea.) :

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

pretty inconsistent re what mr. napolitano from fux news suggests. he's got a fairly casual relationship with the facts. i would add that the ndaa passed the republican controlled house with a significant majority.

not from seattle, although it's a very nice place, i hear. have never been there. your not-so-veiled threat to ban me is quite unconstitutional.

[ZiaAries]

Are you sure that you aren't one and the same with a certain Seattle-based leftist lawyer that was banned from this site about 2 years ago?

Seattle? Who might that be? Methinks it could be the octogenarian in California who claimed to have written a book called 'Why Republicans Lie', among a ship load of other claims, including CIA covert operations in Libya.

[azraelle]

Are you sure that you aren't one and the same with a certain Seattle-based leftist lawyer that was banned from this site about 2 years ago?

Seattle? Who might that be? Methinks it could be the octogenarian in California who claimed to have written a book called 'Why Republicans Lie', among a ship load of other claims, including CIA covert operations in Libya.

The same guy, more or less. Couldn't remember his name, just that I almost left the site because of him.

To gw-whatever: The quote I supplied from Mr. Napolitano was about Obama telling the SCOTUS that it didn't have the Constitutional authority to strike down his health care law (which of course they do...) NOT the NDAA. Obfuscation is a typical tactic of your ilk. But speaking of which, The President's signing statement DOES NOT reassure--coming from a President who has kept virtually none of his campaign promises--so little in fact, that many of those who supported him in 2008 have turned against him now. Moreover, the fact that only 13 Senators did not vote for it, HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH OBAMA SIGNING IT! He didn't have to, you know--which would have negated the need to reassure everyone with a "signing statement".

[gwanjis54]

my bad, Az! not intentional obfuscation. just a wee bit of confusion.

at the signing ceremony, the President also said he did not want the authorities and there were parts of the law he didn't like. no, he didn't have to sign it, but his reticence in doing so suggests he is not at all the kind of president who bulldozes the Constitution. quite the opposite. On January 20, 2017, you'll see that he'll step aside as all our presidents do. your hysteria over the 22nd amendment is quite nonsensical.