Well....I'm gonna get flamed. I rarely post in here and I typically keep middle ground. But this is driving me nuts. Well, I understand the US system of Checks and Balances, and the element of popular sovereignty that our nation provides, but I personally think that our citizens get slightly too much say- so in the matter. There is a reason for a "government." It is there to "govern" the people. Hello....there is a reason that they are where they are, and we are where we are. For people to say that Obama is a dictator because he is advocating gun control, and ultimately possibly making some touch-ups on the 2nd amendment, is just craziness. Obama is the president of these United States. Some people are going to just have to live with that. Now, I am NOT advocating the removal of freedom of speech; not in any way, shape, or form. I mean, people are going to b**** either way. I just feel that the public is putting significant pressure on the decisions of our leaders, an excessive amount. In other words, the leaders exit the doors to hear the opinions of their subjects, then turn around, and reenter the door. THERE is where the final decisions should occur, with the public being outside. Impeachment? Lol good luck with that. Oh and btw, wanna talk about "public assistance?" How the hell is your son receiving free public education? Where does the majority funding take place? The government! Your daughter's student loans? The government! Countless other examples....so yeah. I love freedom of speech, I love popular sovereignty, but most of all, I love the USA. Yep, I get it. This is a democracy, and those officials are elected. But once they are in office, let them do their damn jobs. You put them in office so don't b**** about what they do once they get in there. You can't have your cake and eat it to! This is not an anarchy: this would be a lost country without our government; a government of third-world proportion. Conservatives are so quickly ready to bounce on liberalism, the liberals, and employ them as the scapegoat. Well, for your information, this nation was founded on the liberal ideations of John Locke. The USA was founded by liberals around the time of Enlightenment. Look it up. So, if you want to refer to liberals as “cattle,” well I guess your founding fathers are dead meat, huh? RF
The folks who think Obama's recent executive orders on gun control are unconstitutional should have a problem with every use of the executive order in history. Such examples are integration of the armed forces (Truman) and desegregation of public schools (Eisenhower). If they don't have a problem with all instances of it in history, then they are being selective. They only don't like it when they disagree with the order itself.
No, only the improper use. An executive order should be a ministerial action, a directive for enforcing a law already on the books. When Obama waives the work requirement for welfare with the stroke of a pen, that would be an improper use. As much as he would like to decree his will, the work requirement is the law of the land. Worse than executive orders are the executive agencies, which combine all three branches of government (rule making, enforcement, and adjudication) into a single unelected body. Exactly what the founders wanted to avoid.
The patchwork of 20-something Executive Orders reminds me of one of those cartoons of the man-made contraption with 20-plus moving parts that turns off the light switch.
this type of gross ignorance is the problem with sources life fox news brainwashing people. Obama moves the power of enforcement on welfare to the states at the requenst of Republican governors and fools like this complain.
So, are you saying that I am not allowed to make reasonable demands of the people who represent me? And, if someone that I didn't vote for wins, I am not allowed to submit my reasonable demands to them?
How much "say so" should people have over their lives and their government, in your opinion? What do you see as the job of these elected officials? Is it not to represent their constituency? If the country at large has a very divided opinion on a majority of issues that is reflected in the government.
I think when we, the people, stop holding our elected officials accountable, then we will lose the very freedoms are ancestors fought for so long ago.
Liberal meant something else back then and you're really not coming across well with all the cursing and base political knowledge. The officials have pressure on them because they were elected to lead. If they can't handle it and do their job then they shouldn't be in office. Simple enough. Also, if you knew more about politics and history, you would know that this is completely natural and how it works. It's an ugly process. If you can't handle watching it then I suggest finding other things to read up on.
This is all fine and good . .. when you agree with the policies but When you don't . . . i find people sing a different tune. If the TeaParty or some party you disagree with gets into office We can expect you to not say a peep once they start dismantling the policies you like?!?!?!?!??! Is this what you are telling us??? Agreed. Good law does good things GREAT LAW prevents bad things. When I see things happening . . .even when I agree with them I ask the question - WHAT WILL THE NEXT PERSON TO USE THIS POWER DO WITH IT?!?!?!?!??! WHAT CAN THEY DO WITH IT????? If I don't like the answers. . then I am more incline to restrict the power. Rocket River
OP is clearly a Lockean scholar and is very well-versed in the history of political thought. As such, he did not in any way sound like an uninformed buffoon, simultaneously embarrassing those who might agree with his point of view and providing ammo to those who would disagree with it. No, he definitely did not do that. Great thread. More thread titles in all caps, pls.
at first when I saw the thread, and when it was started (past 3am on a Saturday night), I thought, "hey great, Batman Jones is back!". Then I read that one-paragraph neverending drivel
You need to stop believing liars, Obama did no such thing. The order you are referring to allowed the states to be more flexible in how they implement work requirements. In other words, it increased the rights of states with regard to welfare policy but because of the sources you choose to trust, you actually believe he "waived the work requirement," which is nothing more than a lie.
...and thought to yourself "I wish I could come up with something even half as logical and cogent as this."
