The next four years will contain the biggest executive power grab in American history

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
8 years vs. 4. If Congress continues to be obstructionist, Obama's number will probably be roughly equal to Bush's.

Bush was not faced with an obstructionist congress even before the 2002 midterms, nor was he faced with the greatest repub policy induced financial crisis since the last repub induced great financial crisis of the early 1930's.

What the current crop of Repubs has done is attempt to prevent the Obama Admin from governing effectively, using every available method to do that. Their record on appointments of all kinds is horrendous, their posturing over spending & debt shameful.
 

Newbian

Lifer
Aug 24, 2008
24,777
837
126
Still trying to figure why anyone cares what a Canadian thinks about what he may or may not do.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Replace "Obama" with "Bush" and swap "Democrat" and "Republican" in your little rant, re-read it, and realize that you reap what you sow.

Im sorry. Did you just attempt to refute my statement about wiretap and extraordinary rendition and that Obama didn't urge protection of ATT? That would be after he said he'd hold them accountable. He said the NDAA was bad then signed off on it.

My little ranter, I was against the Iraq war and Bush's administration holding a US citizen when most of the dems were for the former and never mentioned the failure of their party quietly accepting all else with a token comment of criticism. I hoped that Obama would do away with these things, that there would be an investigation regarding Iraq. Their cries were crocodile tears. They could have pursued it, heaven knows they pushed Obamacare through.

So the bottom line is that you haven't any idea. Your party advances what they said they abhorred and ignored what was the most egregious abuse of american might in living memory, and you presume to lecture me on the Republicans? I have no reason to trust your party than the other, and presented truths to back that contention. So you get revenge and do the same things harder. I forcefully reject that.
Please, burn the nation after you mature.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Who was it that ascribed to the idea a President can sign a law then attach a note or something and only enforce the parts he wants to ?

Wasn't that George W Bush, Attorny general Gonzalez, and John Yoo ?

What did Romney say about that ? And why would he protect liberties more than Obama ?

Why do believe I should approve of Romney? Because I speak the truth about your party? Did I not say that I warned the republicans that their acts could later be used against them? Yes, yes I did.

So when I tell you that circumventing Congress against the concept of separation of powers above what has been done before, do not think that invoking "will of the people" or "the greater good" will save you from greater escalation and at least the very same means for their purposes. You have taken the low road and will shoulder the consequences without doubt. Unfortunately so will the rest of us.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,331
10,236
136
Considering the middle class has taken a beating since Reagan was in office it's about time someone stands up against the power elite and corporations that have been supporting these policies.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Considering the middle class has taken a beating since Reagan was in office it's about time someone stands up against the power elite and corporations that have been supporting these policies.

Ahh, so you support usurpation as well. Is that a liberal quality I'm supposed to embrace as a sign of ideological superiority?

A curious thing is that arrogance is a difficult thing to pull off. Saying that the liberal is superior isn't enough, and no amount of hubris will make my prior statements untrue. You simply cannot pull it off. Facts have a basis in reality and nothing more.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
That shows that the Iraq war was not a "power grab", but it might be best not to use as justification. I gave the left hell in this thread, but I would gladly shred the previous administration and their partisans.

You'd be welcome to, but in terms of the thread title Bush carried out the steps as he was supposed to. The fact he lied, spewed bullshit and omitted facts is basically just politics as usual in D.C. and has been for as long as I can remember.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
Considering the middle class has taken a beating since Reagan was in office it's about time someone stands up against the power elite and corporations that have been supporting these policies.

LOL, and you believe Obama is going to stand up against the power elite and corporations? You mean, the same Obama who was completely dependent on the campaign financing and favorable media coverage doled out to him by those same power elites and corporations?

LOL, when are you yo-yos going to figure out how the political system works in our country nowadays? Nobody gets elected president unless the power elite and corporations sign off on it first. Why? Because the power elite and corporations hold the purse strings and control the media - both of which are needed in tandem to attain high office.

That's all there is to it and it doesn't matter who the president is or what he claims to stand for. If he's sitting in the Oval Office reading a teleprompter while smiling into a camera, it's because someone else more powerful and influential OKed it.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Yeah, that didn't work out too well for H.W. Bush, did it?

You have no clue how the Supreme Court works.

You have no clue how Judicial nominees are chosen nowadays. Since Souter, every single Justice confirmed for the bench has been exactly what they were thought to be. In fact there are no ideological surprises serving currently.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
You have no clue how Judicial nominees are chosen nowadays. Since Souter, every single Justice confirmed for the bench has been exactly what they were thought to be. In fact there are no ideological surprises serving currently.

Yep, and the ideology that aligns them is the ideology of Big Government. Some of them play the role of "conservative" Justice, while the others play the role of "liberal" Justice. This keeps the sheep believing that the Supreme Court is acting as a proper, balanced check against the Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S. government. But make no mistake, for every step back the Supreme Court takes away from Big Government, they will take two steps forward towards Big Government.

The Supreme Court is a sham and was captured around the same time the White House and Congress were captured. We're talking 1900 to 1920 or so. All three branches serve completely different masters than the public believes. Government of, by, and for the banks and corporations.