The GOP shows it's stupidity once again.....

Because no president has ever changed positions... your anger is almost comical. The president is granted the power to issue executive orders by the constitution. Just because you don't like the president or what the order pertains to, doesn't change that fact. Go cry a fucking river. He's still trailing Bush by 100 and Clinton by a larger margin than that.

Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, OR are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

So in your opinion a president can change or make any law he wishes? After all he just needs to sign an executive order. You are really stretching to cover your guys ass.

So in your opinion a president can change or make any law he wishes? After all he just needs to sign an executive order. You are really stretching to cover your guys ass. Originally Posted by Budman

Is that what I said? You have to put words in my mouth to even get close to making your case. Read the Constitution.

Because no president has ever changed positions... your anger is almost comical. The president is granted the power to issue executive orders by the constitution. Just because you don't like the president or what the order pertains to, doesn't change that fact. Go cry a fucking river. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

First you say it's “almost comical” to complain about Obama changing his position on executive orders as a candidate versus POTUS. Then you say the authority to issue EOs doesn't change "just because you don't like the president". Are you too stupid to see how you just contradicted yourself? Have you ever heard the adage - what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Make up your mind. Or go cynical and agree with my previous post (#148) that Odumbo is a complete hypocrite whose position on EOs depends entirely on whether he is outside looking in (2008) or inside looking out (today).

Is that what I said? You have to put words in my mouth to even get close to making your case. Read the Constitution. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

First you say it's “almost comical” to complain about Obama changing his position on executive orders as a candidate versus POTUS. Then you say the authority to issue EOs doesn't change "just because you don't like the president". Are you too stupid to see how you just contradicted yourself? Have you ever heard the adage - what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Make up your mind. Or go cynical and agree with my previous post (#148) that Odumbo is a complete hypocrite whose position on EOs depends entirely on whether he is outside looking in (2008) or inside looking out (today). Originally Posted by lustylad

Of course your position on something will change depending on the context through which you're looking at it. I'm not really sure how I contradicted myself. The authority to issue an EO doesn't change, regardless of the president. What's comical is you're only complaining because it's Obama.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

That means nothing to me. Not sure what it had to do with the presidents' power to issue an EO

The authority to issue an EO doesn't change, regardless of the president. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You make this too easy, dipshit. If the authority to issue EO amnesty "doesn't change" and was always resident in the White House, then why did Odumbo tell us 22 times he couldn't do it?

And before you repeat your incredibly lame non-excuse (see your post #133) that "oh, he changed his mind" - that would mean his EO authority can change any time he wants it to, which means you contradicted yourself again!

You are the world's worst fucking debater, undercunt!

Are you too stupid to see how you just contradicted yourself? Originally Posted by lustylad

I'm not really sure how I contradicted myself. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You ARE too stupid then. I rest my case.

.

You make this too easy, dipshit. If the authority to issue EO amnesty "doesn't change" and was always resident in the White House, then why did Odumbo tell us 22 times he couldn't do it?

And before you repeat your incredibly lame non-excuse (see your post #133) that "oh, he changed his mind" - that would mean his EO authority can change any time he wants it to, which means you contradicted yourself again!

You are the world's worst fucking debater, undercunt!






You ARE too stupid then. I rest my case.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Jesus Christ your a thick-headed bastard. I said the authority to issue an EO. Not an EO regarding amnesty. You added that shit. Have you ever studied the fucking law? What do you think gets debated before SCOTUS? Interpretation of the law. Sometimes it changes depending on their ruling. If they say it's unconstitutional, then in fact it will have changed you dumbass CUNT. It's obviously not up to him ultimately if it goes to SCOTUS.

Jesus Christ your a thick-headed bastard. I said the authority to issue an EO. Not an EO regarding amnesty. You added that shit. Have you ever studied the fucking law? What do you think gets debated before SCOTUS? Interpretation of the law. Sometimes it changes depending on their ruling. If they say it's unconstitutional, then in fact it will have changed you dumbass CUNT. It's obviously not up to him ultimately if it goes to SCOTUS. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Oh gee, so now you think you're making sense? Please, please, pretty please tell us which SCOTUS ruling(s) did Odumbo rely on when he told us 22 times that he couldn't issue an EO on amnesty? And which new SCOTUS ruling reversed the previous precedent and gave him a green light to change his mind? Please cite the cases here, Flea Bailey!


Btw, you shitbrained Ozark hick, you're = you are; your = belongs to you. Learn the difference.

.

Oh gee, so now you think you're making sense? Please, please, pretty please tell us which SCOTUS ruling(s) did Odumbo rely on when he told us 22 times that he couldn't issue an EO on amnesty? And which new SCOTUS ruling reversed the previous precedent and gave him a green light to change his mind? Please cite the cases here, Flea Bailey!


Btw, you brilliant Ozark bastard, you're = you are; your = belongs to you. Learn the difference.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

He said he wouldn't do it because I guess he thought he could work with Congress to get stalled immigration reform pushed through. They didn't do anything so he took it upon himself to get something done. It's perfectly within his constitutional powers to issue an EO.

As for your and you're, I graduated with a degree in Journalism. I'm well aware of the goddamn difference. I've actually made a living writing. I was posting from my phone and it auto-corrected. If that's the best you got, get on my fuckstick.

Here's one of Bush's greatest hits BTW. Not only is it an EO, but it's classified as to what it actually contains.

No. 3: Finessing the Geneva Conventions
Executive Order 13440 (PDF)
July 20, 2007

What the order says: After the Supreme Court pushed back against the Bush administration's efforts to hold the Guantanamo detainees indefinitely and without charges, doubts arose about the legality of the CIA's use of coercive interrogation techniques (or torture, if you think water-boarding amounts to that). For a time, the CIA's interrogation squeeze was on hold. Then Bush issued Executive Order 13440, and the interrogators started rolling again. The order isn't explicit about which practices it allows—that remains classified—but it may still sidestep the protections in the Geneva Convention against humiliating and degrading treatment. According to the New York Times, water-boarding is off-limits, but sleep deprivation may not be, and exposure to extreme heat and cold is allowed.

He said he wouldn't do it because I guess he thought he could work with Congress to get stalled immigration reform pushed through. They didn't do anything so he took it upon himself to get something done. It's perfectly within his constitutional powers to issue an EO.

As for your and you're, I graduated with a degree in Journalism. I'm well aware of the goddamn difference. I've actually made a living writing. I was posting from my phone and it auto-corrected. If that's the best you got, get on my fuckstick. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Hahaha... do you think anyone is impressed that you have a degree in hackwriting from East Podunk Community College? If you had a real job you would know your (you're?) auto-correction excuse won't cut it with an editor in the real world.

And btw, you're (your?) deflecting and distorting again in a most unconvincing way. Odumbo didn't say 22 times I have the authority to issue an immigration EO but I prefer to wait for Congress to act. He said 22 times I lack the authority ("I am not a King") and I HAVE to wait for Congress to act. All of your lame attempts to defend Odumbo is only making both of you look worse!

.

Here's one of Bush's greatest hits BTW. Not only is it an EO, but it's classified as to what it actually contains.... Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Good. Let's keep it classified. What you are telling me is Bush issued an EO to comply with a Supreme Court decision. So he did it to stay within the law, unlike Odumbo who issues his EOs in violation of the law.

Hahaha... do you think anyone is impressed that you have a degree in hackwriting from East Podunk Community College? If you had a real job you would know your (you're?) auto-correction excuse won't cut it with an editor in the real world.

And btw, you're (your?) deflecting and distorting again in a most unconvincing way. Odumbo didn't say 22 times I have the authority to issue an immigration EO but I prefer to wait for Congress to act. He said 22 times I lack the authority ("I am not a King") and I HAVE to wait for Congress to act. All of your lame attempts to defend Odumbo is only making both of you look worse!

. Originally Posted by lustylad

This isn't the real world. And you certainly aren't my editor. He waited for Congress. They didn't act. How does he lack the authority? Constitution grants president the power to issue an EO. It's a check on the other branches. You just don't like that he issued an EO regarding immigration. The truth of the matter is we need immigration reform in this country.

Will someone tell uber cunt that an executive order NEVER has the full power of a law. A law continues past the current congress and executive administration. It must be repealed. An executive order only lasts until someone (the next president let's say) yanks it from the record. That is why so may illegals have been reluctant to come out of the shadow as they like to say. They can come out and find the EO rescinded, then they're right back to where they were but we know who they are now.

So an illegal has more brains than uber cunt. May I suggest a trade on a case by case basis.