• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Obama Has Brought Us to ‘Constitutional Tipping Point’

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,510
3,264
126
Neither of you have brought anything but distraction to the discussion, a tactic you both specifically use when you can't properly engage the subject. If you can't contribute to the topic, just be silent, or better yet, take your circlejerk somewhere else.
That's all you do is bully people, ass. Welcome to your world.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
That's all you do is bully people, ass. Welcome to your world.
Ass? Aww... :( Moonie-Jesus the cyberbully is calling me out for bullying, what will I do? Still nothing relevant from you, I see. Does the squirrel powering that vacuous, defective brain of yours need to be fed, or did you let it out to take a break and it chose to abandon you and the wretched working conditions? Do we need to wait while you hunt for another?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,831
2,928
126
Right, because it's always so civilized? :rolleyes: Have you ever even studied this country's history in politics, the measures that have been taken in the past to get things done? Our current leaders are soft, gutless tools, and there isn't a real leader in all of DC.
You want Obama to Lead and think he is Soft. How are his current actions, Executive Orders, not exactly that? The Republicans have Refused to cooperate in any fashion on many pressing issues. So instead of banging his head against the wall, Obama has done what he and his Administration deem as Constitutional.

So, if people disagree on the Constitutionality of those Orders, they can challenge them in Court.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
You want Obama to Lead and think he is Soft. How are his current actions, Executive Orders, not exactly that? The Republicans have Refused to cooperate in any fashion on many pressing issues. So instead of banging his head against the wall, Obama has done what he and his Administration deem as Constitutional.

So, if people disagree on the Constitutionality of those Orders, they can challenge them in Court.
They are being challenged, 5 suits are in the pipeline now, and what's so brave about sitting in his office and writing an order, thereby avoiding confrontation? I'm not giving Repubs a pass either, but it's the president's job to work with congress and in important situations he has powers to make them sit and work on a solution. He didn't do any of that, and he's going to be sorely pissed and embarrassed when the USSC kicks it right back to congress to fix, and if you think that won't happen then you've forgotten the composition of the court.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
How did you put it? "The Sky Is Falling! the Sky Is Falling!" Oh no, it's the Obstructionists! What will we do?!

Well, here's a theory, you can actually choose to sit for a month and hammer out a deal, if it's something this important. Like I said, lock the place up, order some takeout, and get it done. You act like the government's never done this before, but it was common back before politicians became obsessed with fundraising, when they often stayed in DC for more than 4 days each month.

"We're going to filibuster!"
"Well then, you'd better call your wife, your campaign people, and the people at that fundraiser, because you're not going home this month. I parked the National Guard out front, to make sure we aren't disturbed. Don't like that? Find a different job, because I'm going to make this one a living hell until this healthcare issue is worked out."

...and then mean it. The problem is, people in government don't have guts anymore.
The problem is that you'll go straight to fantasy solutions to maintain your POV, carry on about how Jefferson did it back in the good ol' days.

All the while assuming that Repubs actually want to get anything done that will allow Dems to lead effectively. They obviously don't. They have to take hostages to get what they want, extort concessions to the wealthy from the rest of us.

Why would Dems need to do what you suggest if Repubs weren't obstructionist in the first place?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,831
2,928
126
They are being challenged, 5 suits are in the pipeline now, and what's so brave about sitting in his office and writing an order, thereby avoiding confrontation? I'm not giving Repubs a pass either, but it's the president's job to work with congress and in important situations he has powers to make them sit and work on a solution. He didn't do any of that, and he's going to be sorely pissed and embarrassed when the USSC kicks it right back to congress to fix, and if you think that won't happen then you've forgotten the composition of the court.
It takes 2 to Tango. If one refuses, then there's no choice but to Dance with Yourself.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,510
3,264
126
Ass? Aww... :( Moonie-Jesus the cyberbully is calling me out for bullying, what will I do? Still nothing relevant from you, I see. Does the squirrel powering that vacuous, defective brain of yours need to be fed, or did you let it out to take a break and it chose to abandon you and the wretched working conditions? Do we need to wait while you hunt for another?
What? Not enough people know what an idiot you are?. You just keep your focus on me. Tell me more about my beautiful eyes. Show the world how Moonbeam has you dancing on a string. Ass! Really really stupid ASS. What stupid comment will my ignorant little puppet make next? Come on, let's see you dance. Moonbeam loves to have his bully puppet dance for the audience. Show us how to bully the Puppet Master.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
It takes 2 to Tango. If one refuses, then there's no choice but to Dance with Yourself.
There is a choice, I've outlined two already.

The problem is that you'll go straight to fantasy solutions to maintain your POV, carry on about how Jefferson did it back in the good ol' days.

All the while assuming that Repubs actually want to get anything done that will allow Dems to lead effectively. They obviously don't. They have to take hostages to get what they want, extort concessions to the wealthy from the rest of us.

Why would Dems need to do what you suggest if Repubs weren't obstructionist in the first place?
You're not staying on point and still trying to blame me for some strange reason. :confused: Republicans tried 4 times to get Obama down to Capitol Hill to work on a compromise, he declined every time, saying he wouldn't compromise. That's his job, writing executive orders that circumvent due process isn't.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
What? Not enough people know what an idiot you are?. You just keep your focus on me. Tell me more about my beautiful eyes. Show the world how Moonbeam has you dancing on a string. Ass! Really really stupid ASS. What stupid comment will my ignorant little puppet make next? Come on, let's see you dance. Moonbeam loves to have his bully puppet dance for the audience. Show us how to bully the Puppet Master.
We're having a conversation here, go troll elsewhere.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
You're not staying on point and still trying to blame me for some strange reason. :confused: Republicans tried 4 times to get Obama down to Capitol Hill to work on a compromise, he declined every time, saying he wouldn't compromise. That's his job, writing executive orders that circumvent due process isn't.
Demanding that your opponents re-fight battles you lost, over and over again, is indeed a form of obstructionism.

You prove my point entirely. Thank You.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
Demanding that your opponents re-fight battles you lost, over and over again, is indeed a form of obstructionism.

You prove my point entirely. Thank You.
Obama never showed up for a battle and you have to do that before you can "lose", I'm pretty sure.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
Obama never showed up for a battle and you have to do that before you can "lose", I'm pretty sure.
So Lame. The ACA is established law that has met Constitutional muster in the SCOTUS. Obama isn't a re-enactor, nor do they get a do-over.

Or maybe Repubs can do something constructive, like defunding a defunct organization for the 13th time-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/gop-acorn-defunding_n_3690753.html

Nice link to a story about your boy Issa at the top of the page, too.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,212
8,054
136
Guys! You are all wrong and magic man is right! What he says is true because he really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, believes he is right and we all know the gut never lies!

All you guys are doing is picking on him while he's trying to be really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, super serial!



If I didn't know better I'd say magic man is an alternative incorruptible account! Moonbeam do you concur? Mods can you look into this?
 
Last edited:

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,939
3,079
126
Well. It would have been all different under President Romney.

\that was my sarcasm....
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
So Lame. The ACA is established law that has met Constitutional muster in the SCOTUS. Obama isn't a re-enactor, nor do they get a do-over.

Or maybe Repubs can do something constructive, like defunding a defunct organization for the 13th time-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/gop-acorn-defunding_n_3690753.html

Nice link to a story about your boy Issa at the top of the page, too.
No, it has not, the mandate was determined to be legal, that's it. The EOs to make changes, and the requirements that the states allow it, haven't. The USSC is limited in what it can rule, depending on the scope of the case presented... trust me, they're waiting for the proper one to come along.

I didn't vote for Issa, usually I vote Dem for local and state elections and Libertarian for nationals.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
Guys! You are all wrong and magic man is right! What he says is true because he really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, believes he is right and we all know the gut never lies!

All you guys are doing is picking on him while he's trying to be really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, super serial!



If I didn't know better I'd say magic man is an alternative incorruptible account! Moonbeam do you concur? Mods can you look into this?
They can feel free to look anywhere they want, and I'm sure they'll find everything is copacetic. Though it's a shame they can't do anything about your brain defect. :\

Well. It would have been all different under President Romney.

\that was my sarcasm....
Doubtful, he's just more of the same.

Boing! Why are you tolling me?
Awww, you look so sad, go have your mommy give you a hug Loony. :(
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
No, it has not, the mandate was determined to be legal, that's it. The EOs to make changes, and the requirements that the states allow it, haven't. The USSC is limited in what it can rule, depending on the scope of the case presented... trust me, they're waiting for the proper one to come along.

I didn't vote for Issa, usually I vote Dem for local and state elections and Libertarian for nationals.
None of which changes the simple fact that Repub efforts wrt the ACA are entirely obstructionist by nature. Their idea of how to "fix" it is to replace it with something probably shittier & less universal than our old system- you know, something with that trickle down non effect they love so well.

If you think that the SCOTUS will rule in any effective way that the EO's delaying implementation are improper, you've got rocks for brains. Repubs' demands in that respect are absurd- demanding on schedule implementation of something they profess to not want is as chickenshit as it gets.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
None of which changes the simple fact that Repub efforts wrt the ACA are entirely obstructionist by nature. Their idea of how to "fix" it is to replace it with something probably shittier & less universal than our old system- you know, something with that trickle down non effect they love so well.

If you think that the SCOTUS will rule in any effective way that the EO's delaying implementation are improper, you've got rocks for brains. Repubs' demands in that respect are absurd- demanding on schedule implementation of something they profess to not want is as chickenshit as it gets.
Pleas to emotion and still no substance, that's a habit with you. :rolleyes: They became obstructionists when Obama refused to meet with them to work out compromises after the first draft of the ACA hit the House floor, that works both ways and only an ignorant partisan hack doesn't see where both royally screwed the pooch in this.

The USSC will rule that Obama over-extended his authority with the changes, 27 of them, to Obamacare he made via EO, and since they can't revert the law back to its original state, they'll have no choice but to suspend it and kick it back to congress. This isn't hard to grasp here, Obama fucked up.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
Wow, just wow.

FDR relocated and detained thousands of people without due process.

FDR made the private ownership of gold illegal.

But for some reason obama is pushing the nation to a ‘Constitutional Tipping Point’?

This has been a long time coming. This is not "just" an obama problem. Every president for the past 100 years has in some way tried to limit the rights of the people through executive order.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
Pleas to emotion and still no substance, that's a habit with you. :rolleyes: They became obstructionists when Obama refused to meet with them to work out compromises after the first draft of the ACA hit the House floor, that works both ways and only an ignorant partisan hack doesn't see where both royally screwed the pooch in this.

The USSC will rule that Obama over-extended his authority with the changes, 27 of them, to Obamacare he made via EO, and since they can't revert the law back to its original state, they'll have no choice but to suspend it and kick it back to congress. This isn't hard to grasp here, Obama fucked up.
Dream On.

You link Newsmax? Might as well link the Enquirer.

Oh, and it's nice of you to finally admit the obvious, that Repubs are obstructionist, even if you mis-attribute their efforts and the scope of them. You merely parrot the excuses they've employed all along. They've been obstructionist in all matters, right down to the confirmation of rather minor functionaries & routine matters.

If the People won't let them run the Govt, they'll be damned if they'll let Dems do it. It's scorched earth policy, an exercise in bitterness & spite.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
Pleas to emotion and still no substance, that's a habit with you. :rolleyes: They became obstructionists when Obama refused to meet with them to work out compromises after the first draft of the ACA hit the House floor, that works both ways and only an ignorant partisan hack doesn't see where both royally screwed the pooch in this.

The USSC will rule that Obama over-extended his authority with the changes, 27 of them, to Obamacare he made via EO, and since they can't revert the law back to its original state, they'll have no choice but to suspend it and kick it back to congress. This isn't hard to grasp here, Obama fucked up.
I'm going to tell you that your scenario has about a 0% chance of happening. Taking any and all bets that it will though. I offer very favorable odds!
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
I'm going to tell you that your scenario has about a 0% chance of happening. Taking any and all bets that it will though. I offer very favorable odds!
Obama is using a form of the line-item veto, but through EO.

Rather than vetoing part of a law, obama is pushing the effective date back, and back, and back, and back,,,,.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
Obama is using a form of the line-item veto, but through EO.

Rather than vetoing part of a law, obama is pushing the effective date back, and back, and back, and back,,,,.
Even if SCOTUS rules that what Obama did was not legal, it will not be suspended and kicked back to Congress like that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY