Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
questionmark

Obama’s love affair with executive orders

116 posts in this topic

President Obama served notice in his State of the Union address that he will be using more executive orders in the weeks and months ahead due to Congress's failure to act on his priorities.

Republicans, naturally, are crying foul, with one House member going so far as to call him a "socialist dictator" and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) labeling Obama's tenure an "imperial presidency."

In fact, though, a review of Obama's use of executive orders shows he's signed them at the lowest rate since the 19th Century. The last president to use so few executive actions was Grover Cleveland.

L5Da4bN.jpg

Read more

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quiet! Are you trying to destroy the narrative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quiet! Are you trying to destroy the narrative?

Ehm, no, just trying to see what spin those, who have no political vision except demonizing Obama (besides empty word casings), will put on this.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehm, no, just trying to see what spin those, who have no political vision except demonizing Obama (besides empty word casings), will put on this.

Oh, then you've come to the right place... :innocent:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool chart- I had no idea that FDR had done so many orders!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm not a big fan of Obama anymore this is what happens when the republicans try to throw a wrench in everything he wants to do just because he's a democrat and they are all butt hurt. Looks like Obama isn't even close to being the president that signed the most executive orders.

I only have one thing to say to Ted Cruz. Those that live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

Edited by Hilander
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehm, no, just trying to see what spin those, who have no political vision except demonizing Obama (besides empty word casings), will put on this.

But isn't that a form of flame baiting?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more a case of what kind of EO's he writes than the quantity and his speech basically said he will write law through EOs and bypass congress. Disagreeing with Obama is not demonizing, it is disagreeing with a president that has failed on the economy, failed on foreign policy, riased massive debt with little to show for it and is now saying he will rule by EO because he know best.

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool chart- I had no idea that FDR had done so many orders!

FDR was forced to by a situation similar to the do-nothing-congress during his first two terms, only it was not the Repubs and Dems blocking each other, it was those in favor of Social Security and those against it blocking each other... with more or less the same inanities they are using now to stop ACA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't that a form of flame baiting?

No, it is asking those to put their evidence there where their tongue is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Obama isn't even close to being the president that signed the most executive orders.

it is not the size that matters it is how you use it, lol well i mean in this particular case, what were those orders matters more than how many.

  • 2009 - E.O. 13489 - E.O. 13527 (39 Executive orders issued)
  • 2010 - E.O. 13528 - {C}E.O. 13562 (35 Executive orders issued)
  • 2011 - E.O. 13563 - E.O. 13596 (34 Executive orders issued)
  • 2012 - E.O. 13597 - {C}E.O. 13635 (39 Executive orders issued)
  • 2013 - E.O. 13636 - E.O. 13655 (20 Executive orders issued)

167 Total Executive orders Issued

Obama's first act as President EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 banning release of any of his records, how nice.

Executive Order 13528-- Establishing Council of Governors

Executive Order will Strengthen Further Partnership Between the Federal and State and Local Governments to Better Protect Our Nation

The President today signed an Executive Order (attached) establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

is that militarisation of police??????

Executive Order 13636 of February 12, 2013

Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity

i guess they need to do things different now, since snowden ratted them out.

full list is here. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a slight difference in an EO declaring today National Tiddlywinks Day and and EO that does a complete end run around Congress and the Constitution to, say, grant amnesty to all illegals.

As for FDR, I'd be curious to see how many of those EOs were war related.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more a case of what kind of EO's he writes than the quantity and his speech basically said he will write law through EOs and bypass congress. Disagreeing with Obama is not demonizing, it is disagreeing with a president that has failed on the economy, failed on foreign policy, riased massive debt with little to show for it and is now saying he will rule by EO because he know best.

I have to completely agree with this statement. The quantities of EO's is not what ultimately damages the country; it's what is behind the one's he is signing. When our president passes an EO that basically gives our DHS the right to arrest and detain anyone, anywhere, for the mere "suspicion" of crimes they haven't even committed yet; AND the right to detain them said people INDEFINETLEY; I'd say there is a serious breach of the 4th amendment.

And, even if you were to argue that this isn't a violation of the amendment because these people being targeted are suspected of terrorist activities; you certainly cannot argue that this is exactly how breaching the homeland amendments begins. EO's are passed for suspected terrorists abroad, then those same principals are implemented slowly but surely in our domestic lives. Oh, look at that, it's the NSA taking your phone calls and emails...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more a case of what kind of EO's he writes than the quantity and his speech basically said he will write law through EOs and bypass congress. Disagreeing with Obama is not demonizing, it is disagreeing with a president that has failed on the economy, failed on foreign policy, riased massive debt with little to show for it and is now saying he will rule by EO because he know best.

Absolutely... it is the intent of the orders that is the problem. EOs have their place but they were not intended to be a power grab AROUND a coequal branch of the government.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FDR was forced to by a situation similar to the do-nothing-congress during his first two terms, only it was not the Repubs and Dems blocking each other, it was those in favor of Social Security and those against it blocking each other... with more or less the same inanities they are using now to stop ACA.

Oh please stop with this left wing whine. Many presidents have had a hostile senate AND congress to deal with and did just fine. Obama's problem is he won't compromise and anything, as every other President has done in the past and his policies are rubbish. ACA is a disaster and even democrats are running away from it. It s not going to get better, no matter how lopsided your views are and is, in fact, going to get much worse. That is guaranteed just as I guaranteed 3 years ago the it would be a disaster from day one while you were promising rainbows and lollipops. Sucks being wrong all teh time doesn't it and the article, BTW, is ****e since no one is complaining about the number of EOs he has written, it is WHAT he is writing that is destructive.

I have to completely agree with this statement. The quantities of EO's is not what ultimately damages the country; it's what is behind the one's he is signing. When our president passes an EO that basically gives our DHS the right to arrest and detain anyone, anywhere, for the mere "suspicion" of crimes they haven't even committed yet; AND the right to detain them said people INDEFINETLEY; I'd say there is a serious breach of the 4th amendment.

And, even if you were to argue that this isn't a violation of the amendment because these people being targeted are suspected of terrorist activities; you certainly cannot argue that this is exactly how breaching the homeland amendments begins. EO's are passed for suspected terrorists abroad, then those same principals are implemented slowly but surely in our domestic lives. Oh, look at that, it's the NSA taking your phone calls and emails...

SCOTUS is looking at his recess appointments of the LRB now and even many democrats are decrying what he is doing and what he plans to do in the future. They don't want this to be a precedent as some day they will be out of power and I can guarantee that questionmark would be posting hourly diatribes if Bush tried to pull off this ****e. Silly obamazombies are an embarrassment to everyone ( MSNBC behavior for a prime example).

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely... it is the intent of the orders that is the problem. EOs have their place but they were not intended to be a power grab AROUND a coequal branch of the government.

Seems some democrats are all for dictatorship as long as it their guy playing the tyrant, no matter how fouled up their guy is. He also fails to mention, in any of his posts, that a number of democrats are against this apparent power grab as well. The OP's hypocrisy and anger are increasing as Obama slips further down the polls and one can only imagine what his numbers would be if the press wasn't pussyfooting it around the man.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems some democrats are all for dictatorship as long as it their guy playing the tyrant, no matter how fouled up their guy is. He also fails to mention, in any of his posts, that a number of democrats are against this apparent power grab as well. The OP's hypocrisy and anger are increasing as Obama slips further down the polls and one can only imagine what his numbers would be if the press wasn't pussyfooting it around the man.

I seriously doubt he'd even be president if they hadn't caused the coronation. But even they won't save him when the true train wreck happens and the thing just crashes under it's own weight. Of course by then the damage will be done and if the right continues on their inept path the left will rebound and - God help us all - put Billary in the chair he vacates.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems some democrats are all for dictatorship as long as it their guy playing the tyrant, no matter how fouled up their guy is. He also fails to mention, in any of his posts, that a number of democrats are against this apparent power grab as well. The OP's hypocrisy and anger are increasing as Obama slips further down the polls and one can only imagine what his numbers would be if the press wasn't pussyfooting it around the man.

If there were crazy people trying to block my every move because they wanted to make sure I failed, I would do the same thing. Isn't it the republicans, namely, the tea party who block anything major he tries to do? They bring nothing to the table, and when the president does, they say they won't pass it unless...you do this and this for us first.

Ask yourself, is that a functioning democracy? Point being, what exactly is your point?

Edited by andy4
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were crazy people trying to block my every move because they wanted to make sure I failed, I would do the same thing. Isn't it the republicans, namely, the tea party who block anything major he tries to do? They bring nothing to the table, and when the president does, they say they won't pass it unless...you do this and this for us first.

Ask yourself, is that a functioning democracy? Point being, what exactly is your point?

We dont live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Nearly everything this man has done, and is trying to do is in direct conflict with the constitution. But since you think we live in a democracy, ask yourself, is bypassing every check and balance on the legislative side, by the executive, a functioning democracy? Sounds more like a dictatorship to me.

And what exactly do you mean by functioning anyway? Are we to believe that every power grab by this president, and writing and passing a book shelf of new laws to restrict us, is the only way a government can/should function?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems some democrats are all for dictatorship as long as it their guy playing the tyrant, no matter how fouled up their guy is. He also fails to mention, in any of his posts, that a number of democrats are against this apparent power grab as well. The OP's hypocrisy and anger are increasing as Obama slips further down the polls and one can only imagine what his numbers would be if the press wasn't pussyfooting it around the man.

Merc, I think you know that I'm as conservative as I can be, while trying to remain reasonable, so don't think that I here am defending the current administratiion.

I do, however, defend Questionmark.

When Bush was president, many of the forums of which I am a member were loaded with Bush haters. Some seemed completely anti-Bush.

A population like that makes a forum utterly uninteresting.

Were it not for Questionmark and a couple of other posters not easily ignored (compared to the turtle, for example,) this subforum would be nothing but a collection of seething bobbleheads, nodding vigorously at each other, secure in their own position that they are 100% correct in their views.

That said, it seems to me to be a bit of a strawman to base an argument on the claim that conservatives are saying Obama has signed too many executive orders, as was pointed out by an earlier poster.

My mind on this president was made up early on when he robbed bondholders of their money and handed same to his political contributors - the UAW - when he "saved" Detroit.

Since that event, it's gotten worse, but my opinion of him was already as bad as my opinion can get.

Harte

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do, however, defend Questionmark.

Well, thank you. Now if I keep posting things that seem to be Obama apologies it is precisely because of the same reason I did the same for Dubya (though that was a lot harder for me, not 'cause Dubya is Republican but because it hurts me to defend puppets): I'd hate this forum being converted into a collection of bobble heads by people not being taken seriously anywhere else anymore.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, thank you. Now if I keep posting things that seem to be Obama apologies it is precisely because of the same reason I did the same for Dubya (though that was a lot harder for me, not 'cause Dubya is Republican but because it hurts me to defend puppets): I'd hate this forum being converted into a collection of bobble heads by people not being taken seriously anywhere else anymore.

Gee. QM, and I thought it was because you are simply an agrumentative *******! LOL

Jokes aside, it takes at least two reasonable but differing opinions to have a discussion. Anything else is mere vanity, when you boil it down.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://theodore-roosevelt.com/trexecutiveorders.html

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=1933&Submit=DISPLAY

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Herbert_Hoover/Executive_orders

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=1971

You might want to look at WHAT KIND OF executive orders they all signed.

As there is no comparison at all.

The guys, with the most had to do with wartime, and PAY for soldiers. States lands appropriation.

Obamas are about gun control and destroying more amendments.

Obamas, as always, try to usurp the Constitution, the others, well look them up why

dont you.

No comparison, so.. Nice try.

And it's quality not quantity, that counts.

Lol lol lol

Edited by Simbi Laveau
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee. QM, and I thought it was because you are simply an agrumentative *******! LOL

Jokes aside, it takes at least two reasonable but differing opinions to have a discussion. Anything else is mere vanity, when you boil it down.

Harte

There is no better fountain of youth than a good (sensible and informed) argument, old geezers like me need that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.