Classmates say Romney was a bully!

[Malcolm Wright]

The following article should set your worries to rest, Big Steve, 86.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/21/se...n-arms-treaty/

Not only is there now a mechanism to prevent what you say you fear, but Obama has never voiced the intent to curtail the 2nd amendment via the USA's participation in this treaty. Regulating the import and export of fire arms internationally does not necessarily translate into infringing existing rights in the USA. I don't entirely blame you for feeling uneasy given the importance of the issue to you, and Obama's personal views on gun control. However his personal views don't give him the power to go against such a core concern of a large portion of the American public. You should have known that that road would have been blocked for him... and indeed, it has been.

M.

[big steve]

Obama's history shows he is willing to circumvent congress with EOs and recess decisions. I don't trust him. That's not to say the Moran bill isn't a step in the right direction, as it is. When dealing with Obama and H. Clinton, being vigil is paramount.

[Malcolm Wright]

Obama's history shows he is willing to circumvent congress with EOs and recess decisions. I don't trust him. That's not to say the Moran bill isn't a step in the right direction, as it is. When dealing with Obama and H. Clinton, being vigil is paramount.

I'm learning all sorts of things during this discussion. Your mention of executive orders made me do a little reading on them. Obama has not overused that mechanism compared to other presidents. What makes you feel as if his use of them is something special? You can't circumvent Congress with executive orders. They only become law if they go unchallenged by Congress within 30 days. What is to stop Congress from challenging an executive order they find to be abusive?

I know you don't trust Obama - that's like commenting the sky is blue. What I'm slowly discovering, bit by bit, is that this mistrust is exaggerated, and deeper than is warranted.

M.

[big steve]

I'm learning all sorts of things during this discussion. Your mention of executive orders made me do a little reading on them. Obama has not overused that mechanism compared to other presidents. What makes you feel as if his use of them is something special? You can't circumvent Congress with executive orders. They only become law if they go unchallenged by Congress within 30 days. What is to stop Congress from challenging an executive order they find to be abusive?

I know you don't trust Obama - that's like commenting the sky is blue. What I'm slowly discovering, bit by bit, is that this mistrust is exaggerated, and deeper than is warranted.

M.

The number of EOs is not as important as the abuse of them per content. IMHO, Obama is the worst president in the history of our country.

[Malcolm Wright]

The number of EOs is not as important as the abuse of them per content. IMHO, Obama is the worst president in the history of our country.

Yes, I kind of gathered that you felt that way about him...
Can you provide a comparative analysis that lends credibility to your inference that Obama's executive orders are abusive qualitatively, relative to former presidents? Start with just one example of the most abusive order, if you want to keep things simple.

Also, you have not responded to the fact that Congress can challenge an executive order. So you may try to prove he has been especially abusive, but the fact remains that the system is designed to guard against real abuse anyway. So I fear all this is doing is revealing your search for excuses to feel the way you do about Obama.

M.

[caddis]

What is to stop Congress from challenging an executive order they find to be abusive?

Democrats in Congress.

[big steve]

Yes, I kind of gathered that you felt that way about him...
Can you provide a comparative analysis that lends credibility to your inference that Obama's executive orders are abusive qualitatively, relative to former presidents? Start with just one example of the most abusive order, if you want to keep things simple.

Also, you have not responded to the fact that Congress can challenge an executive order. So you may try to prove he has been especially abusive, but the fact remains that the system is designed to guard against real abuse anyway. So I fear all this is doing is revealing your search for excuses to feel the way you do about Obama.

M.

"Peacetime Martial Law" of Mar 16-incomparable.

Congress would never get anything else done because of stonewalling of the AG as he has done with "Fast and Furious."

[Malcolm Wright]

"Peacetime Martial Law" of Mar 16-incomparable.

Congress would never get anything else done because of stonewalling of the AG as he has done with "Fast and Furious."

Could you quote the sections of the order that are problematic?

I'm well aware that civil liberties are under attack under Obama, but the same was true under Bush. And we saw the Patriot Act delivered to us under Bush - perhaps not an executive order, but who cares in which way poison is delivered: the important thing is how potent the poison is.

M

[big steve]

Could you quote the sections of the order that are problematic?

I'm well aware that civil liberties are under attack under Obama, but the same was true under Bush. And we saw the Patriot Act delivered to us under Bush - perhaps not an executive order, but who cares in which way poison is delivered: the important thing is how potent the poison is.

M

Art I, Sect 9, clause 2
Sect 201

The Patriot Act is different, not an EO, hence not a part of the comparison.

[Malcolm Wright]

Art I, Sect 9, clause 2
Sect 201

The Patriot Act is different, not an EO, hence not a part of the comparison.

You might get a sense of deja vu when you read this, and that's because I'm repeating myself.
I already pointed out the Patriot Act was not an executive order, but argued that the power of the poison is more important than its delivery system in this sort of situation. If you disagree, please say why. Otherwise we'll carry on like reasonable people and recognize that regardless of how we were saddled with the legislation: via act or executive order, its the legislation itself we should be most concerned with.

Otherwise its a little like two slaves bickering over where their masters bought the whips they use on them: the slaves ought to be far more concerned with how painful the whips are than their provenance. Get my drift?

As for the quote, I was hoping for a quote of the actual text. You see I searched for the "Peacetime Martial Law" of Mar 16. On March 16th 2012, two executive orders were listed and neither bore that name. So maybe that's a nickname you made up for the order - anyway, I didn't want to second guess you and thought it best that you provide access to the order yourself. Please do so. Just quote the passages here in their entirety so people can read them. Thanks!

M.

[big steve]

You might get a sense of deja vu when you read this, and that's because I'm repeating myself.
I already pointed out the Patriot Act was not an executive order, but argued that the power of the poison is more important than its delivery system in this sort of situation. If you disagree, please say why. Otherwise we'll carry on like reasonable people and recognize that regardless of how we were saddled with the legislation: via act or executive order, its the legislation itself we should be most concerned with.

Otherwise its a little like two slaves bickering over where their masters bought the whips they use on them: the slaves ought to be far more concerned with how painful the whips are than their provenance. Get my drift?

As for the quote, I was hoping for a quote of the actual text. You see I searched for the "Peacetime Martial Law" of Mar 16. On March 16th 2012, two executive orders were listed and neither bore that name. So maybe that's a nickname you made up for the order - anyway, I didn't want to second guess you and thought it best that you provide access to the order yourself. Please do so. Just quote the passages here in their entirety so people can read them. Thanks!

M.

Google is your friend.

[Malcolm Wright]

Google is your friend.

What do you think I searched with? That's not the name of the executive order, even though many commentators have nicknamed it that way.

Please don't emulate other lazy conservatives on this board who refuse to present the material they base their arguments on. You made a claim. Substantiate it please. I shouldn't even really have to ask for it.

In turn, if you want me to substantiate anything I claim with relevant documentation, feel free to do so and I will oblige.

M.

[Chachma v'Oz]

I've been trying to follow this and googling Art I, Sect 9, clause 2 Sect 201 got me nowhere.

[Notalibtard]

We will see ganshing of teeth, tearing out of hair & wailing of lefturds when Rommmy bullies Barry at the Polls in Nov.

[big steve]

I've been trying to follow this and googling Art I, Sect 9, clause 2 Sect 201 got me nowhere.

Obama's EO addressed that.

[Malcolm Wright]

Hey Big Steve

In case you're still trying to find the executive order so you can quote it, its correct name is "National Defense Resources Preparedness."

M.

[Chachma v'Oz]

"Art I, Sect 9, clause 2 Sect 201" doesn't identify anything in the "National Defense Resources Preparedness" EO, so there's at least one thing wrong with post #89. We need more specifics (and correct ones).

[Malcolm Wright]

"Art I, Sect 9, clause 2 Sect 201" doesn't identify anything in the "National Defense Resources Preparedness" EO, so there's at least one thing wrong with post #89. We need more specifics (and correct ones).

That may well be a locator he invented. Seems a little strange to me that there would 201 sections of a clause...
If he invented it, apparently he's lazier than the already low standard we're treated to here: not only will he not substantiate his own claims with quotes: he might be providing deliberate misdirection - perhaps his idea of a good laugh. If so, it shows just how little facts matter to him. But lets see what he comes back with - I won't draw any solid conclusions just yet.

M.

[garyd]

Much of the patriot act under Bush was fomulsted by Ted Kemmedy in the Senate. What Bush got out of congress wasn't what he sent them. Not that such is exactly uncommon. For whatever you think it to be worth what is now called Obama care is in reality Nancy and Harry care. Obama as is his custom on things even modertely controversial had litte to do with it other than his signature.

[big steve]

Hey Big Steve

In case you're still trying to find the executive order so you can quote it, its correct name is "National Defense Resources Preparedness."

M.

Sorry my mistake. It is the EO for NDRP which Obama signed on March 19 which clears the way for Martial Law. I was in a hurry and skipped thru some info too fast.

At least, I admit my mistakes unlike some around here.