Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws

You still lied. Fucker. He did not go to Normandy and you are A FUCKING LIAR... Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

The conversation was not about whether or not he went in 2012.

You're embarrassing yourself. Again.

Ah, CBJ7, you don't understand freedom. It's too bad, but you will feel comfortable when the police state takes full force. No need to think for yourself, the government will do it for. They will tell you what you need to know, and what you don't. At least you'll be happy that way.

Ah, CBJ7, you don't understand freedom. It's too bad, but you will feel comfortable when the police state takes full force. No need to think for yourself, the government will do it for. They will tell you what you need to know, and what you don't. At least you'll be happy that way. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Just another perpetuality that only became a problem on 1/20/09.

It's been a problem a lot longer than that, Doofie. Obama is just the current threat. He's not the first.

It's been a problem a lot longer than that, Doofie. Obama is just the current threat. He's not the first.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're right. I think George Washington was probably the first.

Nah, not Washington. But there are arguments that the problem began shortly after his administration. I posted the progression of tyranny on another thread. It began a long time ago, but has escalated to breakneck speed under Bush 43 and now Obama.

I never thought I'd say I missed Bill Clinton. I do.

The conversation was not about whether or not he went in 2012.

You're embarrassing yourself. Again. Originally Posted by Doove

You lieing little prattle mouthed BITCH.

I never thought I'd say I missed Bill Clinton. I do. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You don't miss Bill Clinton. You miss the era in which Bill Clinton was President.

The reason you think corruption is escalated like it has is because you now have 20 million webmasters all reading each other, feeding into each other, and trying to propagandize every little atomic sized piece of information into a major scandal of some sort. And with people like you who get off spending 14 hrs a day perpetuating it all in your rambling postings on internet forums, forums that didn't exist 15 or even 10 years ago, of course people are going to think it's worse than it's ever been. Only problem is, it's not. It's only worse than they've ever known it to be. Big difference.

Expedite the enforcement? What the heck does that even mean? Make the law scheduled to take effect on 1/1/13, take effect on 1/1/12? Make it so they can ignore the part of the law whereby asylum seekers need to apply for asylum?

What are you talking about. Originally Posted by Doove

Doofus, invest in a dictionary.

and you had plenty time to read the bill .. the debate lasted over a year, the bill cleared the senate in December and wasnt signed until March ... you are the one obligated to make an effort to go to Washington and read it ... unless of course you think you have the right to have HR's delivered to your front door. Originally Posted by CJ7

COG is right, CBJ7, the public wasn't given enough time to read it. Even Pelosi said: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Notice, there's no connotation that your number one bitch said: "You had time to read the bill; so we can pass it." Quite the opposite.

Doofus, invest in a dictionary. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

For someone who's always quick to (think he's) set me straight by posting pages and pages out of everything from The Constitution to Wickipedia, i'll take this as your admission that you don't know what you mean either.

For someone who's always quick to (think he's) set me straight by posting pages and pages out of everything from The Constitution to Wickipedia, i'll take this as your admission that you don't know what you mean either. Originally Posted by Doove

Then you would be -- as usual -- very wrong, Doofus. Buy a dictionary, you prick.

Then you would be -- as usual -- very wrong, Doofus. Buy a dictionary, you prick. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No need to.

ex·pe·dite   [ek-spi-dahyt] Show IPA verb, ex·pe·dit·ed, ex·pe·dit·ing, adjective
verb (used with object)
1.to speed up the progress of; hasten: to expedite shipments.
2.to accomplish promptly, as a piece of business; dispatch: to expedite one's duties.
3.to issue or dispatch, as an official document or letter.
adjective
4.Obsolete . ready for action; alert.

So again, tell me what it means to "expedite" a law, without changing it in any way, a law that's supposedly been on the books for years by using an Executive Order.

No need to.

ex·pe·dite   [ek-spi-dahyt] Show IPA verb, ex·pe·dit·ed, ex·pe·dit·ing, adjective
verb (used with object)
1.to speed up the progress of; hasten: to expedite shipments.
2.to accomplish promptly, as a piece of business; dispatch: to expedite one's duties.
3.to issue or dispatch, as an official document or letter.
adjective
4.Obsolete . ready for action; alert.

So again, tell me what it means to "expedite" a law, without changing it in any way, a law that's supposedly been on the books for years by using an Executive Order. Originally Posted by Doove

Jackass!

But how did Bush's order accomplish that? If the laws were already on the books, if they didn't need to be amended or changed, then all we needed to do was follow them as already written.

Where was the need to issue an Executive Order?