Obama Calls For Dictatorship In America! Communists Democrats Cheer! Treason Caught On Video!

This title was written with strong words in order to play with people's emotions.

It's interesting how everyone claims a secret government is controlling everything, but then they put all of the blame on Obama calling him a dictator.

It's either one or another, it can't be both.

He is a dictator, or he is a puppet for whatever this "secret" government says.

The partisan hyperbole stymies me.

In the past four different Presidents signed over one thousand Executive Orders during their terms in office:

Franklin D Roosevelt - 3,522
Woodrow Wilson - 1,803
Calvin Coolidge - 1,203
Theodore Roosevelt - 1,081

The next six ( to top off a rounded "Top Ten" would be )

Herbert Hoover - 968
Harry S Truman - 907
William Howard Taft - 724
Warren G Harding - 522
Dwight D Eisenhower - 484
Ronald Wilson Reagan - 381

This shows a cross section of modern Presidents, from both parties, liberally utilizing the tool of "Executive Order" to their advantage. None of those in the top ten took over the country or created anything resembling a dictatorship. Though I am positive some will argue that FDR was, in effect, a defacto dictator.

Currently there are twenty past Presidents who have signed more Executive Orders than the current POTUS. While I am not in any way defending the sitting POTUS - implying that he is abusing EO's as a means of creating a dictatorship are simply historically unfounded and not at all in line with the facts.

Source for totals

Originally posted by xuenchen


If Obama keeps harping that he wants to do the best he can for the citizens, and we have a House of Representatives elected by the citizens that has a majority that HE doesn't want to 'work with', what do we learn from THAT logic ?

If they could stop wasting time trying to stunt the freedom of gays, minorities, and women, and focus on real issues, then maybe I'd agree with you.

Obama isn't serving the will of the population is he ?

How could anyone without executing executive orders, something we all agree isn't the most prudent idea?

Obama hates compromise, he wants his cake and eat it too.

And Congress is the beacon of compromise??

"" You should have your own show on FOX News ""

i applied, but i never went to college so they denied me the show.

I thought being uneducated was a prerequisite.

I just wonder what all you would say if the situation was reversed. What if Ron Paul had become president, and a liberal obstructionist congress stopped him from making any of the changes that he promised his voters he would make? What if time after time he was stonewalled? Would you be satisfied if his 4 years were completely wasted, as he was prevented from doing anything his campaign was based on? Would you support him if he tried to do what he could "legally", i.e., executive orders (which are very limited, by the way) to bypass an obstructionist liberal congress? I'll bet you a million dollars you would.

reply to post by Hefficide


I dont think ANY of these Past Presidents have had the debt at 16 trillion plus, Heff. Our economy is being propped up by an Administration and FED hellbent at keeping their power or destroying the ecconomy in the process.


And As Polarizing as Woodrow Wilson was, Obama is NO Woodrow Wilson.

It all started when I was 15 and read a book about him, which impelled me to hang his picture on my bedroom wall. I’m pretty sure I was the only kid on the block who did. In the 48 years since, my budding obsession has only grown. I’m hardly alone in my fascination. Franklin Roosevelt idolized him. Harry Truman called him “the greatest of the greats.” And when Richard Nixon moved into the Oval Office, he requested Wilson’s desk for inspiration.

Presidents earn their places in history not simply through their vision and eloquence but, ultimately, through their actions—what they accomplish when they take their feet off the desk and enlist support in their causes. No act in Woodrow Wilson’s life provides a greater window into his character—or a greater lesson for our current president—than his journey in the last days of summer 1919, when he embarked upon the most quixotic venture in America’s history since its founding—a 29-city barnstorming tour by rail to enlist the American public in his plan to end all wars

A League of His Own

A good read.


Ironic, what this man did compared to our current President.

And Obama has a Peace Prize.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by sonnny1

 

I have seen many defectors from Obama though, who realize that he isnt a good President. Few and far between though. I was hard on Bush for all his mistakes, and even harder on this man after ALL the promises he made.

I'm one of them....the few and far between.
I'm really irritated (PISSED OFF!) that I voted or him twice.

And you now regret what, not having a Romney presidency?
It is one or the other.

Here is the overall difference of the two.
When Obama does these power grabs, it is an embarrassment and a shame on him and the party, it goes against the very core principles.
When a R does it...it is not a big deal, because it is their ideology anyhow.

The whole L verses R thing being an illusion is halfway correct in that it appears whomever is put in office seems to go the way of power grab and police state mentality. The difference though is idealism. One demands it, the other abhors it.
I point out the Homeland Security and Patriot Act thing. During the Bush years, it was a simple case of if you object to it, your not American, terrorists win, etc etc etc. the right thought it was an amazingly wonderful thing.

Now years later, Obama continues to push for them...to the dismay of his own party. The right's response to this is..well, its not like Obama repealed it.
Yes..exactly, but he should have. the left demands it. But because Obama didn't, doesn't mean McCain or Romney would...considering its in their ideological desires to fully maintain it...the supporters wave flags over such talk.

Is Obama doing a good job? Meh..not really. His hands are somewhat tied given the dynamics of the houses mind you. Its a lame duck presidency simply from setup, and so actions can be taken either through a congress that refuses to even pass a damn farm bill without nonsense, (aka, no chance of anything ever happening while O sits in office), or through executive action, which is limited in power and scope.

So, I think the whole situation is borked anyhow, and the only thing that can come from the way things are at the moment are temporary measures that can quickly be squashed. So, all talk, no action...as voted in by the American people.

In regards to passing things through congress.
only the most convtraversial legislation should be held to a supermajority. Yet since 2014, it has been that for every single item.
Why? simple

It is a desire to toss the entire nation under the bus simply for power grabbing. They have and will refuse to do anything, especially anything that improves the nation, because these anti-American $#@s are demanding power or they will sink the ship.

I am not sad for my support for Obama...not that he is some outstanding president, but because it punches those smarmy corporate purchased anti-American slimeballs that want to see America burn right in the nose.

Anyone whom internally tries to rip the nation down is a traitor. I am not talking political ideology here, I am talking about a specific desire to see spiked unemployment numbers and disaster...and this goes on both sides mind you. Plenty were hopeing during the last 4 of Bush that the country would be in ruins so the R's would look bad...they are also in my opinion complete traitors to the people.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I just wonder what all you would say if the situation was reversed. What if Ron Paul had become president, and a liberal obstructionist congress stopped him from making any of the changes that he promised his voters he would make? What if time after time he was stonewalled? Would you be satisfied if his 4 years were completely wasted, as he was prevented from doing anything his campaign was based on? Would you support him if he tried to do what he could "legally", i.e., executive orders (which are very limited, by the way) to bypass an obstructionist liberal congress? I'll bet you a million dollars you would.

Comparing Ron Paul to Obama?


Preposterous.



Obama doesn't have one shred or ounce of integrity Ron Paul has.

reply to post by sonnny1


You didn't answer the question. Would you support your choice of president implementing huge numbers of executive orders to bypass an obstructionist congress?

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I just wonder what all you would say if the situation was reversed. What if Ron Paul had become president, and a liberal obstructionist congress stopped him from making any of the changes that he promised his voters he would make? What if time after time he was stonewalled? Would you be satisfied if his 4 years were completely wasted, as he was prevented from doing anything his campaign was based on? Would you support him if he tried to do what he could "legally", i.e., executive orders (which are very limited, by the way) to bypass an obstructionist liberal congress? I'll bet you a million dollars you would.

An excellent question.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Comparing Ron Paul to Obama?

Preposterous.

Obama doesn't have one shred or ounce of integrity Ron Paul has.

You didn't answer the proposed question.

reply to post by SaturnFX

And you now regret what, not having a Romney presidency?
It is one or the other.

With all due respect, Saturn, no.....
it isn't "one or the other", really. Not in my mind. Romney would also have been a disaster.

I am not sad for my support for Obama...not that he is some outstanding president, but because it punches those smarmy corporate purchased anti-American slimeballs that want to see America burn right in the nose.

Anyone whom internally tries to rip the nation down is a traitor.

What? I agree with you about the "anti-American slimeballs"....

I think Obama is doing what he "can" given the partisan bickering. But, the fact remains that he has increased the 'drone program', and, well, I'm a pacifist.
I thought he was, too. Is he simply 'misguided'? Is he really just a "puppet"? I don't know.

I'd really like to buy into his rhetoric, but his actions (aside from his dealings with Congress - which is what JSOC is: apart from Congressional oversight)......are not helping world peace be realized.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by sonnny1

 

You didn't answer the question. Would you support your choice of president implementing huge numbers of executive orders to bypass an obstructionist congress?

Ron Paul wouldn't do it!

Why use him as your example?





I would support Ron Paul. Hell Yes.

Originally posted by Painterz
Obama's politics are extremely right-wing, he's a fiscal conservative, why on earth do people keep calling him a 'communist'?

That is totally one of the most outrageous statements I've seen here, and I've seen a lot. He is not right wing by any stretch of the imagination. Do not imagine that because the Elites are controlling both parties that some things he does are because he is right wing, rather if it looks right wing it's because he can't force Congress to do all his bidding.

reply to post by Garkiniss


He said "what if" Ron Paul was the President.

Its not my fault he and you doesn't "know" Ron Paul's stance on the subject.

I dont want any President to use them. They dont use. They abuse.

reply to post by sonnny1


LOL. When has a "federal law" ever been written with an executive order?

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by sonnny1

 

LOL. When has a "federal law" ever been written with an executive order?

Where is it written that a President can have a personal "kill list", and use it on American Citizens?

Lots of questions, hey?

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

And you now regret what, not having a Romney presidency?
It is one or the other.

With all due respect, Saturn, no.....
it isn't "one or the other", really. Not in my mind. Romney would also have been a disaster.

But it is. We can pretend it isn't, but as it sits now, it really is and as much as people make a fuss about Ron Paul Bob Bar, Ross Perot, the ultimate question is, do you choose D, R, or toss your vote into a volcano.
I don't agree with this, but it simply is the way things are and it won't change for decades, if not centuries, to come.

I am not sad for my support for Obama...not that he is some outstanding president, but because it punches those smarmy corporate purchased anti-American slimeballs that want to see America burn right in the nose.

Anyone whom internally tries to rip the nation down is a traitor.

What? I agree with you about the "anti-American slimeballs"....

I think Obama is doing what he "can" given the partisan bickering. But, the fact remains that he has increased the 'drone program', and, well, I'm a pacifist.

Agreed, and it is a disappointment. one of many. But where the left is disappointed in this, the right applauds (as muted as they would). I see the difference. Obama hung his head when found out. Romney would have had it tattooed on his forehead that he expanded it exponentially

I thought he was, too. Is he simply 'misguided'? Is he really just a "puppet"? I don't know.

I'd really like to buy into his rhetoric, but his actions (aside from his dealings with Congress - which is what JSOC is: apart from Congressional oversight)......are not helping world peace be realized.

Mhmm, I understand.
But again, back to the original point. If it really is just one or the other...and everything else is strictly a distraction to filter away votes that will never go anywhere, then a choice of ideals at the very least should be made and stood by. the potus doesn't even matter in some circumstances (especially during a lame duck). the ideals of peace, liberty, and economic sanity, technological growth, and a higher standard of living are what is needed to be pushed...then one day the promises made will be fought for tooth and nail by a politician...and actually pass.

But lets not pretend a independent will ever win within our lifetime..not the way the media and corporations are set up. sadly...

reply to post by sonnny1

And As Polarizing as Woodrow Wilson was, Obama is NO Woodrow Wilson.

I have to disagree he is another Wilson that gave us the Federal Reserve.

Obama gave us the Frank-Dodd Act that increased federal reserve powers and created the Consumer Protection Bureau that picks up where the Federal Reserve leaves off.

Two peas in the same fascist pod.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Painterz
Obama's politics are extremely right-wing, he's a fiscal conservative, why on earth do people keep calling him a 'communist'?

That is totally one of the most outrageous statements I've seen here, and I've seen a lot. He is not right wing by any stretch of the imagination.

Awesome...so where can I get my universal healthcare card on the single payer system?

oh...your saying obamacare is just some crappy mandate for private insurance and nothing really changed outside of the government yelling at me to get covered. so much for that philosophy. Sounds pretty right wing to me.

I miss the idea of Hillarycare.

reply to post by neo96


On that I will agree.

On wanting to stop Wars?

Wilson at least tried.

reply to post by elouina


That video was crafted in the finest tradition of Leni Riefenstahl, and with all the even handedness that she was famous for. Pretty silly stuff, but plenty of reason for people like you to get frightened and start demanding that someone do something about that bad negro man that lives in the White House.

It's pretty childish stuff from the rest of the human race's perspective, but you go on and have fun with it.