"I can do whatever I want"

 Post Reply    Back to Forums
1–25 out of 37 messages
Author Message

cruiser Posted - 2/11/2014 8:40:28 PM | show profile | flag this post

While the president may try to pass this off as jocular and the left leaning media will do everything it can to aid him in that effort, it is unguarded moments such as this that provide the clearest view into the inner workings of a person's mind.

This dude clearly doesn't "get" the relationship between the executive branch and the other two co-equal branches of our government. His attitude and actions would be far more apropos to bananna republic dictators like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Manuel Noriega, etc.

I always questioned his "constitutional scholar" bona fides...particularly when he referred to our founding document as one of "negative rights"...but he continues to show his unique ineptitude, his disdain for the structure of the US government and his paucity of qualifications for the office he holds.

cruster Posted - 2/11/2014 9:01:39 PM | show profile | flag this post

What a Lovely Word Salad!

Meaning nothing.

With no context or attribution.

Can I try?

I think that stuff done by those guys who support that thing shows they don't know what they're doing. And the media who supports their point of view will turn a blind eye to the events that lead to the results that are detrimental to people opposed to that.

Hey! That's egregious fun!!



VTexan Posted - 2/12/2014 7:25:13 AM | show profile | flag this post

Any so-called Journalist

...who begins a column with a quoted "I can do anything I want" then misrepresents reality as if a President said precisely that, but didn't...isn't just not a journalist. What he is is a liar.

Believing something true, and it BEING true aren't the same thing.

That you've got to be told this cruiser, at your advanced age, makes it clear your grasp on same is tenuous at best.

Your "infrequent" posts are becoming less so. You remember what you said. Right?

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 2/12/2014 9:46:30 AM | show profile | flag this post

Show your work...

cruzo.

What has Obama done that is not constitutional? He is exercising his powers -- under the Constitution -- to use executive orders that are part of what the founders gave the Executive Branch to make it CO-EQUAL with the other two branches.

It appears that you, and like-minded extreme right wingers, are the ones who favor an unconstitutional approach to deny this president
the powers given every previous president because it encroaches on the TEA Party's whining mantra of "I can do what I want."

cruiser Posted - 2/12/2014 10:31:49 AM | show profile | flag this post

The ONLY power under the constitution

the president has is to issue executive orders to clarify, specify and control the EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND ITS OPERATIONS. NOTHING beyond that. He CANNOT make law, change law, decline to enforce law by executive order. And it doesn't matter how many previous presidents...of whichever parties...have done it. It's all clearly spelled out in the constitution.

Left wingers are trying to use others' bad behavior to justify Obama's bad behavior.

con Posted - 2/12/2014 11:14:22 AM | show profile | flag this post

"What has Obama done that is not constitutional? "

Court says Obama appointments violate constitution

http://news.yahoo.com/court-says-obama-appointments-violate-constitution-230653695--finance.html

during the bush years you on the left pissed and moaned about wiretaps, sneak and peek warrants and other surveillance programs, gitmo and due process-claimerating bush was violating the constitution. not only did obama embrace these unconstitutional bush era programs he was once against- obama expanded them.

you have the nerve to ask "What has Obama done that is not constitutional? "

hypocrisy, thy name is liberal......



mpdodgson Posted - 2/12/2014 1:06:04 PM | show profile | flag this post

con had to go back

over two years ago to find something the president did that was allegedly un-consitutional. And even then the article cited how preposterous the courts ruling was ("Under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid.") Has the SCOTUS moved on this? No. Has the House actually begun impeachment proceedings of any kind? No.

The absolute hate-filled desperation here is amazing. Obama jokes he gets preferential treatment during a guided tour and somehow that gets warped beyond recognition into "his disdain for the structure of the US government". Holy crap on a cracker. When I was an active Field Producer, I (countless times) expressed the same gloating when I was given 'behind the scenes' access to NASA, the WH, the CIA, among other places. The phrase 'juck em if they can't take a foke' comes to mind.

You REALLY want to talk about members of the Government shirking their responsibilities?? Look no further than Congress. As we all know, Spending Bills comes from the HOUSE. For (some) to even threaten not to pay those bills--after the money's been spent--now THAT'S not doing your sworn duty.

"I always questioned his "constitutional scholar" bona fides..." Well of course you have, because as we all know, cruise graduated magna cum laude from Harvard before Obama did.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 2/12/2014 4:13:10 PM | show profile | flag this post

Then, cruzo....

You are entitled to take him to court -- or demand your party do that.

The reason they haven't is because they don't really believe all those talking points you just spewed.

They write the to keep uninformed voters like you riled up.

Obama's executive orders are all within the bounds of the Constitution.

Oh, and don't give us a civics lecture after you were slapped down hard after being shown you didn't understand the clause structure of the Constitution. You honestly believed, and argued that presidential appointees require a two-thirds majority in the Senate for approval -- remember? I'll post it below to remind our "casual readers."

Your legal knowledge is very lacking.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 2/12/2014 4:14:46 PM | show profile | flag this post

And just to remind our "casual readers" of...

what cruzo said and fails to understand about the Constitution, here's a collection of his quotes from this thread:

Cruzo said:

“Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution” [From ES -- forget the fact there is not “Paragraph” division in the Constitution, it’s 1)Article (Or Amendment), 2) Section, 3) Clause.]

“(In part): He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for...”

[ES notes: Cruzo fails to see the semi-colon after the word "concur" in the Treaty Clause. This separates the requirements of this clause -- the Treaty Clause -- from subsequent clauses in this section -- in this case the Appointment Clause. You may want to read Alexander Hamilton's "Federalst Paper 67" to see the intent of the framers that the Appointments Clause stands on its own -- and is there to prevent the Senate (or the legislative branch as a whole) from weakening or usurping powers -- in this case the power of appointments -- which the Constitution provides to the executive branch.]

Back to cruzo quotes:

“Please note the requirement for approval by two thirds of the senate. Reid's action MUST be litigated to determine if it meets Constitutional muster.”

[ES notes: Again, there has never been a two-thirds requirement for appointments.]

“Now...of course...left wingers will try to argue that the two-thirds requirement only applies to treaties but the requirement, once established, applies to every part of the same sentence, whether before or after the establishment of the requirement.”

[ES notes: Nope. The Framers themselves structured the Constitution by clauses. The Supreme Court -- since it's first term has based all decisions on that principle as defined by the Framers.]

“It absolutely IS a Constitutional matter. The requirement...which is written into the Constitution and NOT subject to rule changes by the senate...is ‘provided two thirds of the senators present concur.’"

“So Reid could change the rules of the senate so that only one affirmative vote was needed to stop a filibuster but THE TWO THIRDS REQUIREMENT FOR CONFIRMATION WOULD STILL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.”

“I can't help it if the meaning has been lost or perverted over time. All I can do is bring it to the attention of Republican congress members. The rest is up to them.”

ES: Please, cruzo, read the Federalist Papers

-- Again, cuzo... please explain how Sam Alito is serving on the Supreme Court after failing to receive a two-thirds vote.

He was confirmed by a mere 58-42 votes -- eight shy of the two-thirds you falsely claim is required by the Constitution.

Or Clarence Thomas. He was Confirmed by a vote of 52-48 -- 14 votes shy of the two-thirds you wrongly claim is required by the Constitution.


cruster Posted - 2/12/2014 9:36:54 PM | show profile | flag this post

Poor con

So wrong.

So owned.

So sad.


cruiser Posted - 2/12/2014 10:41:11 PM | show profile | flag this post

Our casual readers...

most or all of whom are much more intelligent than the left wing on here...don't need to be told that what Obama is doing is a naked power grab that is clearly not constitutional. Even a number of liberal lawmakers and policy wonks are acknowledging that.

And when the left wing fringe on here resorts to expounding on topics OTHER than those under discussion here, e.g., etwinkie's screed above, it's a tacit acknowledgement of the same.

VTexan Posted - 2/12/2014 11:49:39 PM | show profile | flag this post

I don't remember your posts, cruiser

...about Bush's far greater number of executive orders. Ronald Reagan did the most of any modern President. Were you bent out of shape then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

mpdodgson Posted - 2/13/2014 2:23:18 AM | show profile | flag this post

Then show me.

You self proclaimed asshole expert on everything under the sun. Show me. "Obama is doing is a naked power grab that is clearly not constitutional."

Here it it is: Article II of the Constitution you hold so dear.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Put up or shut up. Considering the SCOTUS or the House Judiciary Committee hasn't found anything, We can't wait to see what you find.

cruiser Posted - 2/13/2014 2:37:42 AM | show profile | flag this post

As I predicted above...

and as they've done repeatedly...the left wing fringe is trying hard to justify Obama's bad behavior by referencing the bad behavior of others.

The point is, you idiots, that it does no good to drag up history...and Reagan's actions, Clinton's actions, Bush's actions are all history. All we can do is express regret. But the current unconstitutional behavior can...and MUST...be stopped lest the republic be irreparably damaged.

mpdodgson Posted - 2/13/2014 5:35:11 AM | show profile | flag this post

And as I predicted,

The Number One Expert On Everything can neither put up or shut up.

We can't talk about past presidents (their wars, their deficits, etc) that's just history donchanknow.

"But the current unconstitutional behavior..." That's fair game. Especially if indeed the current president has in fact violated his Constitutional oath, and has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, well then by all means, begin articles of impeachment.

Well that hasn't happened. And for good reason(s). Specifically, no evidence to support the charge(s). So again, Mr Expert on Everything; put up or shut up.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 2/13/2014 11:57:42 AM | show profile | flag this post

Cruzo...

I'm simply pointing out in my "skreed" that you don't know the first thing about the Constitution and your comments in the initial thread here cannot be taken seriously as a result.

It is quite clear you don't understand Obama's executive orders, how they remain within the limits of constitutional law and how they are a tool granted the Executive Branch to make it co-equal to the other branches.

You should really stick with topics upon which you are well informed -- such as the multiple ways to tell kids to get off your lawn.

cruster Posted - 2/13/2014 12:55:54 PM | show profile | flag this post

So Are There New cruiser Rules on this Message Board?

Because it seems the new style of posts is simply to write a bunch of words that don't make sense then argue about it.

I mean, that's what cruiser seems to be doing.

Is that the deal now?

It's egregious!



mpdodgson Posted - 2/13/2014 1:23:16 PM | show profile | flag this post

Keep in mind

that cruise also famously said that the Constitution "stops" with the Bill of Rights.

So his track record in this field is about as deep as a cookie sheet.

cruiser Posted - 2/13/2014 6:38:35 PM | show profile | flag this post

You'd do well to consult a medical professional

about your hallucinations.

orthicon Posted - 2/13/2014 6:50:33 PM | show profile | flag this post

it's a waste of time calling cruiztwit out..

he's nothing more than an a**hole troll..that's all he's ever been.. that's all he ever will be..

VTexan Posted - 2/13/2014 7:51:29 PM | show profile | flag this post

Hallucinations, cruiser?

Like the hallucination that you were going to post sparingly?

cruiser Posted - 2/14/2014 10:36:32 PM | show profile | flag this post

"misrepresent reality as if a President said precisely that"

No hallucination on my part. The president said PRECISELY that. It's on tape, it's been in the news and I've heard it.

But now even some liberals and left wingers are criticizing Mr. Obama for his naked power grab. The man will stop at nothing to impelement his Socialist agenda and "fundamentally transform" the United States.

con Posted - 2/15/2014 5:12:25 AM | show profile | flag this post

occasionally obama's narcissism kicks in. this reminds us he is a democrat.

Grateful Deadline Posted - 2/15/2014 12:10:44 PM | show profile | flag this post

Hey, con, run a spell checker on your new screen name.

I'm curious: Why do you change screen names as often as people change winter coats? My favorite so far was "kinky con." It just had a je nais se quoi about it.

cruster Posted - 2/15/2014 12:17:13 PM | show profile | flag this post

"fundamentally transform" the United States

although he hasn't, and isn't, and isn't trying to.

Paranoia strikes deep...

Egregiously deep.

cruiser! What's that knock at the door?!!


1–25 out of 37 messages

 Post Reply    Back to Forums