I was disappointed how they seemed to now be saying that suddenly the Republicans are on the side of 'following the rules' and not on the side of using any tactic that works to further your agenda, no matter how sneaky or underhanded. (by having the 'bill' say 'we're going to sue you', it implied to me that he's a republican...not a piece of legislation). That's why I can't upvote, that's just disingenuous, unless things have changed in the last week.
I was also disappointed that everyone is up in arms about this order...it will likely barely be implemented before the next election because of legal challenges, (edit: or possibly, but unlikely, because the congress actually acts itself and creates a different law superseding the order) If the next president is a Republican, he (or she) will probably simply void it day one. That's the thing about executive orders, they are at the whim of the CURRENT president and easily removed...but they are also actual law and are used by both parties to bypass gridlock in congress, at least temporarily.

Your video, I'm Just A Bill vs Executive Order - SNL, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Execute order 66 on these spammers.

Bottom-line real shit for any brain-dead motherfucker out there who's still got Obama's back or is, 'tooting his horn', or wants a few minutes in the purple-room to suck his balls?:

He signs an executive order which reads that he can detain an American for any fucking reason, then, is authorized to disappear their ass to Guantanamo (still open), some bunker in Poland, or fuck, under the fucking White House if he just wants to rub salt in awound, and NO ONE, No judge, no family members, no entire state protesting, can do a mo-the-r fucking thing about it...

An evil, lying fuck-stick of a charlatan disguised as a leader, and anyone still drunk on the kool-aids' a complicit buffoon.

Why run to Russia and be prepared to keep on running?? Ask Snowden, or at the very least, listen to what he's fucking saying kids....

Fuuuuck people, read some fucking books!

The authoriuty for the nsa warrentless wiretapping was given by executive order,,by bush...in 2001. 12 fucking years ago. The patriot act was signed by bush 41 days after 9/11...The ACLU sued over these policies in 2003. Michael moore devoted 10 minutes of his movie to it in 2004. It was WIDELY REPORTED in 2005 that the nsa was monitoring domestic phone calls and collecting and reading email and phone records. 9 fucking years ago..The nsa has been building billion dollar data centers, they are not fucking invisible buildings that only wonder woman can see. NONE OF THIS HAS EVER BEEN A FUCKING SECRET. Obama and congress just reauthorized all these OLD FUCKING BILLS. It took 12 fucking years for the mindless fox news fucking morons to catch up to what liberals have been saying since at least 2004. here is the ny times, from two thousnd..fucking..five.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

The authority for warrentless wiretapping was given by Bush, by an executive order ,TWELVE YEARS AGO,,before Obama was even in the senate. The patriot act was signed by Bush 41 days after 9/11. Obama wasnt even in the senate then. That the nsa had access to phone and email servers was known, at least 7 years ago,, and many, many, media outlets reported it. Why does everyone suddenly care now??! Oh,,because fox news got upset, now all the teaparty idiots suddenly caught up with the rest of the fucking world....welcome.

I don't disagree about the snooping since 2001. As far as the koch brothers and the Tea Party, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

They just want the Constitution follow or at least print current laws back towards it.

Instead of watching biased Democratic sucking media, go to an actual event .

They are not raciest, or the desire to go back to slavery as the media puts forth. . That's Bullshit. B.W.Y. the slavery shit and the KKK was the Democrat south doing its thing, not Republicans. MLK was Republican.


Today the Republican party is nothing more than a cheap intimation of the Democrat party. They will never win fighting that way. The Tea Party is they way to go.


FYI a little history ... Since you had a public education and hence only learned skewed left leaning revised history...


http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

"
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act... And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.

The Democrats were loosing the slavery battle and civil rights were breaking through and JFK/Johnson the

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans."


Democrats are still in the slavery business. They just use the welfare system to keep the poor poor and use the shallow promise of If you vote Democrat we will keep giving you a little cheese.

The Democrat party has been the most destructive political party to date.

Of course "screens" are important here and there are several "screens" already in place and a few could use some repair and tightening. Obama put 23 executive orders in place to do just that. I fully support fixing the small holes in the "screens".

Now, back to this murder. He is clearly not well-trained (or at all) and is certainly not responsible. A well trained, responsible gun owner would have never even revealed he had a gun until it was absolutely necessary to defend themselves or their property. They certainly wouldn't have come out the door firing into the air and then unloaded into a fleeing car because brown people are in it.

This guy fucked up. He murdered a kid. He'll pay for it and he deserves to. I wish there were a way to weed out the crazies legally and sanely, but the crazies will always find a way to show how crazy they really are. Hell, if this guy had used a bow and arrow, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Same deadly result, same murdering, paranoid act, but somehow when you toss in a gun and the current media fervor over guns, it is plastered all over every website and TV channel out there.

One of the executive orders Obama signed recently was to appoint a director to the ATF. Good guy, Obama.

Vetoing the 2012 NDAA would have held up the military budget and would not have stopped the detention clause. It was a lose/lose game of political chicken and Obama chose pragmatism over idealism.

Obama has greatly helped the country by creating a healthcare program, by passing stimulus, by using quantitative easing to keep the recession from going depression, by ramping down military operations in the middle east, by favoring diplomacy over sabre rattling in Iran.

As far as promises go, he has kept (or at least attempted to keep to the best of his ability) most of his big promises, like ending combat in Iraq, creating a health care system, ending the use of torture, putting needed financial regulations into place, restricting warrantless wiretaps, ending denial of health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and signing an executive order to shut down Gitmo. Congress blocked his order to shut down Gitmo, which means the timetable is dependent on getting Republicans out of congress this November. Contrary to popular belief the executive branch is not all powerful. I know you don't like Obama, but can you at least admit these are positive changes for the better that would not have happened under a McCain or Romney administration? What were the broken promises you were talking about?

I love intellectuals like Chomsky and Chris Hedges and respect their criticisms of Obama. I think it would be much more productive to be informed by intellectuals, rather than slumming it in the right libertarian gutter. This video is just as frivolous as the Jackson video, if not morso.

I wish Obama was could be more progressive too, but that isn't going to happen in a conservative country where big business and the military industrial complex wield as much power as they do. We need both idealism and pragmatism if we are going to make progress. The country is far from how I'd like it to be, but I am happy that Obama is moving us in the right direction.

This is all good fodder for discussion, but it is clear from the dishonest way in which this video was put together that the Kochs are more interested in creating a political hit piece than fostering any kind of discussion.

They claim Obama signed an executive order to kill American citizens, but they provide no context and erroneously use the plural (citizens) when in actuality it's just one guy. I'm not sure if it could have been avoided. I'm not sure how many lives it saved, if any. I'm not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing. In context, it exists in a very debatable grey area. But we see no attempt to understand any of this in this sanctimonious sermon.

As far as NDAA, it was not a bill designed to indefinitely detain prisoners, it was, (is) an annual military budget bill. John McCain attached a rider to the 2012 NDAA that allows for indefinite detention, for reasons I don't understand, because indefinite detention was already permissible under other existing clauses. Obama asked for it to be removed, but no action was taken, and it was voted in with a veto proof majority.

As to why the court case was appealed, I don't know. It might have something to do with Obama's executive order to shut down Guantanemo and provide trials for the prisoners. Congress vetoed the order by prohibiting funds to try the prisoners, leaving them in a kind of limbo. Does this clause give him more time to shut down Gitmo and give trials to the prisoners under a new and improved congress? I don't know. The point is that while it might be fun for the Koch's to drop some provocative soundbites, they do it in a superficial way that does little to further the conversation. If you want depth, read Chris Hedges, who has written some great stuff on the subject.

You could say that Reason is being superficial on purpose to mirror the Jackson video, but none of the videos they produce ever approach any level of depth.

Beyond all that, right wing libertarianism is not a viable alternative to a consensus guy like Obama or even a complete disaster like Romney. They are at the bottom of the barrel as far as our choices go. Their backwards and luddite view of economics disqualifies them from serious consideration from anyone with even a cursory understanding of economics.

Obama has kept his promises of ending combat in Iraq, getting us a healthcare system and signing an executive order to shut down gitmo (even if congress stopped him from doing it). I'd love to elect Noam Chomsky as President, but that's not going to happen, and he probably wouldn't get much done if somehow he were miraculously elected. There are many factions in this country pushing and pulling, and frankly, I can't remember a time when regular citizens had more pull. Change is slow in a democracy.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^MrFisk:
>> ^direpickle:
>> ^MrFisk:
The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.

And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch

I... I assume you posted that to back up what I said?
"The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment."
"The DOJ [part of the Executive Branch] is comprised of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons."
Per Wikipedia, w.r.t. FBI:
"FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States. They... serve a term of office of five years... unless they resign or are fired by the President before their term ends."
Democrats.org lists the president as one of the leaders of the party.
In summation, the president is nominally one of the heads of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. Why is he seen as being powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?


Technically, the FBI's main concern is terrorism. It's the DEA that has been licking their chops to bust stoners, grow-ops, etc. Them, and state's attorney generals looking for a feather in their cap.
I don't think the President can tell them to ignore laws on the books. However, he does work with Congress to write a budget that funds them: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/the-national-drug-control-budget-fy-2013-funding-highlights
And as you can see, the Obama administration continues the same failed policies of his predecessors. So, I'm not say he's powerless; I'm saying he's complicit.

>> ^MrFisk:

>> ^direpickle:
>> ^MrFisk:
The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.

And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch


I... I assume you posted that to back up what I said?

"The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment."

"The DOJ [part of the Executive Branch] is comprised of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons."

Per Wikipedia, w.r.t. FBI:

"FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States. They... serve a term of office of five years... unless they resign or are fired by the President before their term ends."

Democrats.org lists the president as one of the leaders of the party.

In summation, the president is nominally one of the heads of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.

Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. Why is he seen as being powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

That's a cool law. Laws are fun. Lets all make laws!!

By Executive Order in New Jersey:

The Order, announced today bans ten entire classes of synthetic compounds that imitate the effects of marijuana, and all known or unknown variants of the drug that would fall within each class. The Order also expressly includes “any other synthetic chemical compound that is a cannabinoid receptor agonist and mimics the pharmacological effect of naturally occurring cannabinoids” – in other words, any synthetic chemical that mimics the effects on the brain of marijuana’s active ingredient

—–

Citizens SHALL NOT stimulate their Cannibinoid Receptors with ANY SUBSTANCE
They SHALL NOT protest this either.

Wow, was that pathetic. Here's a tip to the Obama campaign trying to reframe his failure... CUE CARDS GO UNDER THE CAMERA SO HE ISN'T STARING OFF THE SCREEN WHEN HE READS YOUR TALKING POINTS.

So, this video pretty much says the only thing Obama has done is a stupid Health Insurance reform that benefits no one but Insurance companies (his campaign contributors) and a few million people not currently covered, and it might kick in around three years from now. Bravo.

Appointed someone to Supreme Court, OMG!!!! Let's make a statue.

Actually let Congress do something about DADT since he failed to act. Wow, he didn't veto it. Bravo. (We'll pretend we don't realize he could have ended it any any time immediately with Executive Order)


In the end his only argument for Obama is that he doesn't like Nader (who would enact a semblance of Progressive change) and GOP candidates are bad. Wow, GLOWING RECOMMENDATION!!

Even Obama's re-election campaign can only muster this lame attempt at viral endorsements. The guy sounds like he is defending a creepy uncle with the enthusiasm of a funeral director.