mmmm yes, Obama is doing too much executive ordering you say? can you update this graph for me to reflect the current aproximate orders he will give during his term?
I never stated that he does it too much or too little. I just stated that Obama abuses executive order. Nice graph.
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/7a.asp "ANDREW JACKSON, greatly loved by the masses, used his image and personal power to strengthen the developing party system by rewarding loyal followers with presidential appointments. Jackson also made extensive use of the veto and asserted national power by facing down South Carolina's nullification of a federal tariff law. Jackson vetoed more bills than the six previous Presidents combined. ABRAHAM LINCOLN assumed powers that no President before him had claimed, partly because of the emergency created by the Civil War (1861-1865). He suspended HABEAS CORPUS (the right to an appearance in court), and jailed people suspected of disloyalty. He ignored Congress by expanding the size of the army and ordering blockades of southern ports without the consent of Congress. THEODORE ROOSEVELT and WOODROW WILSON each expanded the powers of the presidency. Roosevelt worked closely with Congress, sending it messages defining his legislative powers. He also took the lead in developing the international power of the United States. Wilson helped formulate bills that Congress considered, and WORLD WAR I afforded him the opportunity to take a leading role in international affairs. Franklin Roosevelt, who was elected four times to the presidency, led the nation through the crises of the GREAT DEPRESSION and WORLD WAR II. Roosevelt gained power through his New Deal programs to regulate the economy, and the war required that he lead the country in foreign affairs as well. So, the powers of the modern presidency have been shaped by a combination of constitutional and evolutionary powers. The forceful personalities of strong Presidents have expanded the role far beyond the greatest fears of the antifederalists of the late 1700s." If one is to be concerned with the expansion of power in the executive branch, look no further than these individuals.
Honestly tho, most of what Obama is "abusing" is small stuff and temporary (and easily removed by future Presidents). We should really be concerned with things like the Patriot Act and the stuff that gets thrown into the NDAA year after year (these things are insipid, and sticks around). If you, as an American, are concerned about Obama's abuse of power more than you are about Congress' actions of late, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
I guess I didn't expect much from a child, surprise surprise. More bluster and bullshit from the guy that knows nothing but claims too know everything. Typical child mentality, back on the ignore.
I'm concerned about both honestly, and have been for many years. Not much people can do though about either, until everyone's eyes open.
Difference is President Barry Soetero is a buttpuppet to all the socialist/communist central bankers running this world and he has done absolutely nothing to limit the power the Federal banking system has over this country with his executive power. Andrew Jackson was a true people's president who destroyed Nicholas Biddles bullshit central banking system. As a result America grew rich because Andrew Jackson destroyed the central banking system until Woodrow Wilson sold out in 1913. Andrew Jackson(fvking bad ass who loved america)>Barry Soetero(socialist puppet who secretly hates America). P.S. Andrew Jackson should remain on the 20 dollar bill. One of the few wisest of presidents who killed the disgusting central banking system which once again has a monopoly politically and financially over our country. DEN OF DISGUSTING VIPERS!
Ah, I see, the difference is purely ideological. As long as what they are doing are things you agree with, it's acceptable and they love America. If they do things you don't agree with, it's abuse of power and they hate America. The fact that either may be expanding presidential power, abusing executive orders to "reform" America, not respecting the branches of government, etc., doesn't actually matter, because ideology trumps principles. This is not a judgement on you or anything. I actually think it makes sense, and it is how I believe most people think about politics.
Obama is a puppet. How could he orchistrate all that stuff while playing golf on vacation? If you wanna know who runs stuff, check into tavistock. and maybe burn was talking about that^ EDIT: Obama is a Liberal Athiest. He has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, but he's not a muslim.
As long as the ideology and actions being projected by our leaders are pro-America yea I do support it. Obama's ideology is anti-American. He is a communist puppet who wants to eliminate America's nuclear power, our financial worth and has done a pretty good job on destroying America with debt. He sees Islamic radicals as these anti colonial freedom fighters who he sympathizes with when he should not. Should not have meddled in Libya's affairs or Syria's. Andrew Jackson on the other hand was pro-American. Andrew Jackson fought against central banks who sought to control America politically and financially with their monopolies. Obama does not do any of these things. Obama's mentors are 1. Frank Marshall Davis(radical communist/pro-soviet/on the FBI watchlist), 2. Bill Ayres( radical communist/bombed the pentagon/bombed the whitehouse), 3. Roberto Unger(radical leftist Harvard professor rejected by the Brazilian govt. for being too radical), 4. Jeremiah Wright(famous for his hatred of America). Our president the America hater. Yea good job on voting this guy into office talk about a anti colonial leftist who thinks America is an evil empire that needs to be dismantled.
Ironically you're the one who has done nothing but present his own opinion as fact without any basis whatsoever. Your arguments didn't even connect on a basic level. Here's how your post went: "I see more protesters in all my years now, therefor the guy in office is to blame" and "Obama hates America, because I watch Fox News". Yeah, that's how that works. Just like your clueless threads on balance, you are unable to even find proper cause and effect. Instead, you take random observations, smash them together in a sentence and delude yourself into thinking that that makes sense. Anyone with any average education who's EVER done the least bit of studying on research or how to present an argument can see red flags going up with every sentence you post. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. But you've always thought you were smarter than you are, so the chances of you even realizing that none of your posts are even slightly relevant in a discussion among adults. And I've never claimed to know everything, but it's embarrassing that I as a European am better informed about the dynamics of your country than yourself, because all the info you think you have is pure ass.
There are a couple things to note regarding the "racial tensions." Much of it, I think, can be attributed to the fact that there is now increasing video evidence of this behavior by police - while there were always whispers of mistreatment, the age of smartphones and social media has forced everyone to look at the evidence where there was little before, so it's not surprising that things have gotten worse in the race relations area. There is no reason to believe that Obama is to blame for the existence of smartphones and social media. Terrorism is on the rise globally, so somehow suggesting that Obama is responsible is pretty absurd.
A volcano erupted under Obama's watch. My sources tell me he nuked it to Firk over the area and take advantage of the economic downfall with the fed alongside of him.
I don't know where you live, but in the US it's pretty easy for bad guys/crazies to get a hold of guns illegally. My field of study isn't economics or sociology but I would imagine that, with all the guns currently in circulation, if guns were suddenly made partly or entirely inaccessible, there would be quite the market for illegal gun transactions. However, you are correct in that the above would make it slightly more complicated to obtain a gun. But I seriously doubt that slight bit of extra complication would stop anyone.
I found this article interesting: http://qz.com/727941/how-do-police-handle-violence-in-countries-where-officers-dont-carry-guns/
