What's new

United Police States of Obama

I mean...yes... on a technical level yes... but... that's a gross oversimplification as well. The BBC is not biased to the same extent or magnitude that Fox News is.
Yeah, there we can disagree. All media is biased. Media always favors one or the other
 
Can we see some facts to back this up? Cause right now... all this is... is
And thats with anything in this world. Everything is biased.

And Red, I don't have to post shit. Wooohooo i posted a video. This makes me right, No.
 
And thats with anything in this world. Everything is biased.

And Red, I don't have to post shit. Wooohooo i posted a video. This makes me right, No.
No, you don't have to post anything to support your views. You also don't have to acknowledge when I provide facts and examples from reality that stand in direct opposition to the things you say, even after you constantly repeat that I don't have the facts straight. But you can't expect anyone to take you seriously if you do that.

Do you know who the guy in that video is? His name is Mitch McConnell, and he's the Minority Leader of the Senate. Days after Obama was elected, he explicitly stated that his party's main goal was to obstruct the president. This is far more damning evidence than your offering of a simple statement with nothing to support it.

You accuse me and others in this thread of bias and ignorance, but you gloss over everything I give you and simply repeat yourself with no elaboration. Surely you see the irony in this.

EDIT: Okay, videos. But did you notice that I never defended MSNBC? Its viewers were also misinformed, but not nearly as profoundly as those of Fox News. If you're going to argue with me, please confront the arguments I'm actually making and not the ones that you're imagining I'm making.
 
Disagreeing with baseless arguments about the president doesn't mean that you love Obama and everything he's ever done.
 

Much better.

Yes, that was an underhanded thing to do. Transparency is important, and it's been one of the Obama administration's weak points (re: the drone memo). I will maintain that Republican obstructionism that made such tactics necessary is a far more pervasive problem. If Obama were a tyrant, he'd have had a much easier time of getting more than just a few initiatives to barely squeak through Congress.

EDIT: Zevrix called your argument into question, you called her names.
 
I was careful not to use any personal attacks in my post, unless me wondering if you were joking in order to elicit a response a personal attack. Honestly what makes me think that is you "Disagree"-ing with every post that differs from your opinion. Knee-jerk reactions are usually not the best way to handle things.
 
I was careful not to use any personal attacks in my post, unless me wondering if you were joking in order to elicit a response a personal attack. Honestly what makes me think that is you "Disagree"-ing with every post that differs from your opinion. Knee-jerk reactions are usually not the best way to handle things.
This was my fault. I thought this was Zombie responding to my post. I do apologize for the personal attack.
 
This was my fault. I thought this was Zombie responding to my post. I do apologize for the personal attack.
Ad hominem attacks aren't okay regardless of who they are.

By the way, Zombie, your first post was harsher than I think Zakis deserved. Sorry I didn't say anything at the time. It's okay to get heated, but I'd like to keep insults out of it (or at least reserve them for politicians :)).
 
This was my fault. I thought this was Zombie responding to my post. I do apologize for the personal attack.

Appreciate that there. Let me say, I knew what was in store when I encouraged Zakis to post on this topic. That being said, EVERYONE WELCOME TO THE RANTS SECTION! Shit is gonna get heated and I think that is good! So far so good IMO. Understand though people have the right in this section to defend their points via reasoning and if someone posts without something to back it up, I would only assume it would get pointed out.

Note I did removed the memes.
 
Much better.

Yes, that was an underhanded thing to do. Transparency is important, and it's been one of the Obama administration's weak points (re: the drone memo). I will maintain that Republican obstructionism that made such tactics necessary is a far more pervasive problem. If Obama were a tyrant, he'd have had a much easier time of getting more than just a few initiatives to barely squeak through Congress.

EDIT: Zevrix called your argument into question, you called her names.
But obama has bypassed Congress on multiple points and has "in-my-opinion" exceeded his presidential power.
 
Do you know who the guy in that video is? His name is Mitch McConnell, and he's the Minority Leader of the Senate. Days after Obama was elected, he explicitly stated that his party's main goal was to obstruct the president. This is far more damning evidence than your offering of a simple statement with nothing to support it.



This makes me sick because as a COUNTY it is our job to work together regardless of who gets into office. That is called a democracy!
 
Like I have said before I am HORRIBLE on forming my own words for this shit hence the videos and posts. But I understand what I read and here is another example. For example a broken congress.

As the best laid plans of our nation falter because of gridlock in our astonishingly dysfunctional Congress, we are all wondering who is in charge. The answer, of course, is President Obama, and for the most part, he has not been shy about using his executive power to get things done, but here is the funny thing: Despite the fact that the issues the president wants to address through executive action -- gun control, gay rights, clean energy, and financial relief for low and middle income Americans -- are all essential to the well-being of our nation, Republicans are hellbent on opposing it.

While the GOP's grounds for objection, steeped in constitutional arguments and a fear of tyranny, might seem patriotic, they are anything but, for they are based on a skewed sense of history and on a hidden agenda to weaken our government relative to greedy corporate interests.

In its reading of our history, the Republican Party seems to have skipped an entire volume of our past, namely the two decades following the American revolution, during which our first and most famous commander-in-chief, George Washington, governed like a veritable monarch and with good reason. Washington's autocratic method of presiding, which Thomas Jefferson and others secretly despised, was necessary to hold the Union together so that it could survive all the ideological and partisan disagreements of the time and to protect the foundation that was being laid for a stable and cohesive future. Washington did not see America as merely a collection of states but as a grander and more holistic body that required a focal point of control to be successful. That focal point was the federal government, and by extension, Washington himself.

It was not the most constitutional approach but it was a smart, pragmatic -- and as it turned out -- the right, approach. As a matter of fact, even the ratification of the constitution, a process of which Washington was one of the stewards, was itself decidedly unconstitutional in that it made an end-run around the Articles of Confederation to secure approval from all the states.
The reason for all this was simple: it had to be done and so it was.

America today is in the same place as during Washington's time. Deep ideological and partisan divides have polarized the people and paralyzed our government time and again over the past four years; paranoid secessionist fantasies have become commonplace; racial prejudice has reared its ugly head once again; and economic inequality is growing by the second, not to mention that the pumping of astronomical sums of money into politics has destroyed any shred of objectivity that Congress may have had on the lawmaking side.

In short, we are a nation at risk of flying apart and falling apart, just as we were in 1787, and the prevention of that requires a firm leader who is willing to call the shots no matter how unpopular those decisions might be and no matter who disagrees with him. Like Obama, Washington had plenty of detractors in his time, and like Obama, he chose to ignore them not because he was a tyrant but because he recognized that the interests of the nation superseded the interests of any political faction, and that it was his job as the president to lead.

To lead.

America is not a true democracy but a republic, in which elected representatives of the people make decisions on our behalf, and the highest elected office is that of the president. In other words, when the citizens of America vote for a president, they are appointing a supreme leader to make decisions on their behalf. More importantly, the people impose a responsibility upon the holder of that office to make decisions and to take responsibility for the successful governing of our nation.

What this means is that when a president is confronted by inaction on the part of Congress or imminent threats to our nation's interests, then it is not just his right but his responsibility to do something about it. The buck stops at the Oval Office.

In an ideal world, President Obama would be able to work with a reasonable Congress to get things done but the mean-spirited partisanship of the GOP has made this nearly impossible. In such a climate, the president has no choice but to take executive actions that are timely and necessary to protect our present and our future.

In fact, he needs to do it more, for by themselves the Republicans will not stop obstructing initiatives that can shield the disenfranchised, the poor, and the defenseless from abuse, they will not let the government be a checking force against powerful special interests, and they will continue to distract us from the truth by focusing the national attention on false patriotism and nonsensical constitutional interpretations.

These are all things that will destroy our great nation, and the only thing that can stand in the way, as it did in George Washington's time, is the commander-in-chief.
 
Or the misuse of executive orders...

Obama has not issued 900 executive orders. He has signed slightly fewer orders than President George W. Bush during this point in his first term, according to the University of California, Santa Barbara, which tracks executive orders. Obama has issued 139 executive orders as of Sept. 25. (The U.C. website listed 138 orders on Sept. 25, the same day Obama signed order 139). Bush issued 160 executive orders through Sept. 20, 2004, a comparable amount of time.
 
Sure. Just bear in mind that it's almost impossible to do anything the normal way anymore.
Sure he can. That's what congress is there for. To do things the normal way. Abusing his power is a way for him to get what he wants done. Not that it is good for the country
 
Top Bottom