Obama General Discussion, vol. 5

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Do you dislike 2 women kissing as much as 2 men?

No - I don't dislike it as much.

I'm hypocrite.

[INDY500]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/us...line.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The State Department released a report on Friday that could pave the way toward President Obama’s approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The long-awaited environmental impact statement on the project concludes that approval or denial of the pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, is unlikely to prompt oil companies to change the rate of their extraction of carbon-heavy tar sands oil, a State Department official said. Either way, the tar sands oil, which produces significantly more planet-warming carbon pollution than standard methods of drilling, is coming out of the ground, the report says.

Continue to appease the environmental lobby or provide good paying American jobs... What will our brave president do?

[Irvine511]

i'd start by looking at what's happened in West Virginia. and the Gulf. and Alaska. and ...

[INDY500]

Obama 2008: Bypassing Congress Unconstitutional - YouTube

“I taught constitutional law for ten years,” President Obama said in 2008. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.'

Feb 2014
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ablers.html”

TURLEY: I'm afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama's policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.

And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.
Jonathan Turley, constitutional professor

Some of you will remain silent longer than others unfortunately.

[Irvine511]

given the unproductivity and mindless obstructionism of Congress and the American people's incredibly low opinion of the GOP-controlled House, i say go for it.

[Diemen]

It's quite ingenious, really. From day one we'll make it our mission to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct everything the president wants to accomplish. Hold a meeting with the power players of the Republican congress and senate even before he's elected, and make it clear that "if he's for it, then we have to be against it." Make it out to be the president's fault while we're at it, claiming that we're willing to work with the president if he'd just come to the table (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), which makes the president look bad even though everyone knows that we're the ones actively obstructing any attempts at bipartisanship. After all, it will make Obama look bad since he ran on a platform of working together.

Allow the new blood in your party to rise to prominence plainly and actively promoting a legislative view that treats compromise as anathema to any REAL conservative, all the while decrying the Democrats unwillingness to negotiate. Become the biggest do-nothing congress in the history of the Republic (by far), while also filibustering and/or obstructing the most appointments in the history of the Republic, and then claim that the president is the one not reaching out.

And when the president finally gets fed up of the charade and wants to get stuff done for a change, decry his lack of respect for the Constitution.

Brilliant!

[INDY500]

Pfft, if only. New blood rise to prominence my ass. The GOP establishment and congressional leaders spend more time calling out and degrading Ted Cruz and the "wacko-bird" Tea Party than they do this president. Seems to me Boehner and McConnell just gave in to the president on the Debt ceiling for example.

But let's assume the GOP takes the senate next year. Will we be calling the president an obstructionist when he vetoes bills?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

given the unproductivity and mindless obstructionism of Congress and the American people's incredibly low opinion of the GOP-controlled House, i say go for it.

No surprise. You applaud when a solitary judge nullifies a popular vote, rewrites a constitution, and redefines marriage for an entire state. No surprise at all that you are pro-despot.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by INDY500

No surprise at all that you are pro-despot.

Ooh, pro-despot. How cutting.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Pfft, if only.

So you'd prefer those who treat compromise as anathema to be more prominent in the party?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

The GOP establishment and congressional leaders spend more time calling out and degrading Ted Cruz and the "wacko-bird" Tea Party than they do this president.

Hahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahfasfhasdhfahffahfadfhafh

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

No surprise. You applaud when a solitary judge nullifies a popular vote, rewrites a constitution, and redefines marriage for an entire state. No surprise at all that you are pro-despot.

for a straight man, you're quite the drama queen.

here you go: Virginia’s gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional: A perfect record for equality post-Windsor.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

for a straight man, you're quite the drama queen.
Drama queen?

Didn't you compare a law to reaffirm the constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion to Jim Crow Laws?

Originally Posted by Irvine511

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/13/anti-gay-jim-crow-comes-to-kansas.html

what's interesting is that what they are proposing is *exactly* what INDY has said anti-gay discrimination can't compare to: Jim Crow.

Yes you did.

Drama queen? Let me just take a few quotes from the article about Virginia:

The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving, "Loving for All"

"Loving for all." For all? If we can't discriminate in marriage because of race. If we can't discriminate in marriage because of sex. How can we discriminate on the basis of number? How is it constitutional to draw the line there?

The judge opened her opinion with the quote, above, from Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in the 1967 challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.

The 14th amendment was written specifically to address discrimination against ex-slaves. Where in the Loving Decision did it say, "this ruling applies to same-sex marriages also"?

She thus joined a unanimous and ever-expanding collection of federal judges who have chosen to answer the question left up in the air by the Supreme Court last Spring

Which all but admits these judges are acting outside the law and unconstitutionally. If pointing out that a judicial oligarchy and an imperial president make these scary times for republicanism and the rule of law makes me over dramatic, so be it.

[Irvine511]

You really have no idea how the three branches of government work, do you.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

You really have no idea how the three branches of government work, do you.

Currently or as set forth in the Constitution with enumerated powers?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Currently or as set forth in the Constitution with enumerated powers?

What is the role of the judiciary?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

The 14th amendment was written specifically to address discrimination against ex-slaves. Where in the Loving Decision did it say, "this ruling applies to same-sex marriages also"?

Once again you're trying to have it both ways, and why no one can take your constitution beating seriously. Here you try and say that the 14th amendment only applies to the context of the time, but you absolutely refuse to listen to anyone who says consider the context when speaking about the 2nd amendment.

So which one is it?

[PhilsFan]

What was the second amendment SPECIFICALLY written to address and how has that been taken and run with? Talk about hypocrisy.

[INDY500]

Oddly plausible.

[PhilsFan]

So Debo Adegbile was blocked by the Senate for a position in the JD's Civil Rights division because Republicans didn't like that he had a history of fighting for civil rights.