Bluegrassrivals

I'm having a hard time buying the teary eyed performance as our President announced he was bypassing Congress in yet another EO, this one has to do with gun ownership. Anybody else unconvinced?

The best part of EO's are they are just paper.
Not worth the time of day.

Any new President can simply undo it.

I think that Obama's credibility is shot but he will not face another election. Democrats will never support impeaching him, so he is free to sign as many unconstitutional EOs as he wants to sign before he leaves office.

Some EOs may be very difficult to undo. Republicans have given Obama plenty of money that he could divert into pet projects like gun control and immigration "reform." Hiring thousands of socialist federal bureaucrats, especially those represented by public unions, will make it difficult to undo Obama's damage. The way that I understand EOs, some can have a similar impact to a legitimate law and will require expensive and time consuming litigation to reverse.

I have confidence that a new Republican president would rescind most of Obama's executive orders but it will take more than the stroke of a pen to mitigate the damage that Obama has done and will do over the next 12 months.

I was having a group discussion the other day about Obama and the state of the Union. One of the people in the group that I consider a little extreme, said that she was afraid Obama would encourage the racial divide, the civil unrest, the continued down sizing of the military, etc. until he could declare a state of martial law in the US. She then said, that in that state of martial law, Obama could not be forced to leave the Presidency. I thought that was crazy, but the more I read the more confused I become.

I would love to have your thoughts and opinions about that.

^
Ive heard several people in this are worry about martial law.

I think there is a 99.999999% chance you never see martial law no matter who the president is. Theyre just over dramatic.

IMO, there are still way too many top military leaders that would refuse to follow unlawful orders for Obama to impose martial law. If Obama tried to pull such a stunt, it might deliver a death knell to the Democrat Party. A coup by one of its members would be a tough thing to live down.

TheRealThing Wrote:I'm having a hard time buying the teary eyed performance as our President announced he was bypassing Congress in yet another EO, this one has to do with gun ownership. Anybody else unconvinced?

I don't know what's worse, the performance by Obama or the dimwitted followers he has believing anything he did would actually stop a shooting or mass shooting. I reluctantly watched the town hall on CNN, and found it funny at some of the people they chose to ask questions, and seeing him stutter through the questions from his non-supporters. Taya Kyle had a good question and he danced all around it, even though I was glad to hear him finally acknowledge Chris Kyle even existed.

I'm still not sure what he has achieved by this EO. I think alot of this was just to appease some of his loyal dimwitted following, and just to say look what I did. He's like a child, he didn't get his way with congress so he did what he wanted anyway. For whatever good that done.

Do you think the same rationale is driving him to shut down Guantanamo?

Granny Bear Wrote:Do you think the same rationale is driving him to shut down Guantanamo?

IMO Obama has always played on the heart strings of those that are leading the political correctness in this country. Everyone knows the type i'm referring to. It's the climate change hippie crowd, the oh we must take in refugee's because it's what we do yet doesn't do anything to help our own homeless problem crowd. Gitmo is no different, Obama has said since day one that he will close it, and alot of that comes from appeasing that same crowd. I hear people say we are violating their rights by holding them without charges, these are not just criminals that held up the local 7-11, these are people that would kill these same bleeding hearts if given the chance, they have no rights, they was captured during times of war. This being his last year, Obama will be hell bent on getting that shutdown because his ego won't have it any other way, it's already been proven that these guys are getting right back into the fight after being released, but Obama doesn't care as long as the PC crowd is happy.

Demarcus ware Wrote:IMO Obama has always played on the heart strings of those that are leading the political correctness in this country. Everyone knows the type i'm referring to. It's the climate change hippie crowd, the oh we must take in refugee's because it's what we do yet doesn't do anything to help our own homeless problem crowd. Gitmo is no different, Obama has said since day one that he will close it, and alot of that comes from appeasing that same crowd. I hear people say we are violating their rights by holding them without charges, these are not just criminals that held up the local 7-11, these are people that would kill these same bleeding hearts if given the chance, they have no rights, they was captured during times of war. This being his last year, Obama will be hell bent on getting that shutdown because his ego won't have it any other way, it's already been proven that these guys are getting right back into the fight after being released, but Obama doesn't care as long as the PC crowd is happy.

Granny Bear Wrote:Do you think the same rationale is driving him to shut down Guantanamo?

^^ As to the bolded, not only does he practice his hypocrisy in the manner you have insightfully called out but, let me add to your list an example which is horrifyingly macabre. As mentioned in the thread starter, our deep feeling President gets up on national TV and has an apparently spontaneous emotional breakdown while recalling the kids who were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School. I am still unclear if he is mad at murderers or mad at guns BTW. None the less, to add the necessary drama he has his epically cinematic breakdown. Here is what I find blazingly ironic about it. Not that other Presidents (and voters) don't share responsibility, but just since he took office the US has seen so-called doctors take the blade to a number somewhere north of 7 million unborn babies for mostly convenience sake. My question; where are the tears for the 7 million, on his watch? Those 26 precious and otherwise innocent slain at Sandy Hook are no less real than the unfortunate 7 million, that's for sure.

The deal with Guantanamo is much different. See, the liberal rationale is so shallow it really can be encapsulated within the daily talking points. Thus, we can get to the bottom of things sometimes by listening to what's being said. In this case, every last lib says that Gitmo is a recruitment tool. Agreeably, that is so unremarkable and shallow as to preclude it from passing muster for a question on "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader." But, that is the liberal mindset. That's why Mr Obama went to the world on his apology tour, kind of a forerunner of the Clinton State Department's Russian 'reset button.' It's as if all we have to do is act nice and the rest if the nations will follow suit. Such was the thinking of the events at Benghazi, we dare not roil up the natives for fear they will commit mindless mayhem and murder. Which suggests of course, that they are not responsible for their own actions. This flies in the face of the notion that all mankind has evolved and is standing together on the threshold of a great brotherhood, does it not? I don't want to be brothers with a guy who would put a rocket propelled grenade through my picture window for cutting over on his grass six inches, LOL.

More particularly however, liberals are eternal pacifists. They would have ceded to Hitler and Hirohito's demands causing the world to descend into chaos ahead of schedule. (The coming apocalypse) There is no such thing as 21st Century thinking. And large scale war is not a passé notion that exists only in civilization's rearview mirror. Therefore, though delusions of grandeur and the voices in their liberal heads tell them otherwise, mankind, owing to his own carnal nature, will not allow himself to be led to some utopian brotherhood.

At any rate, rather than face the threat which has plagued this world since Biblical times, liberals believe we should shut down Gitmo and retreat behind US borders. But, not before we pay to import millions of the Arab World into our neighborhoods and tens of thousands of those from Syria. :please:

TheRealThing Wrote:^^ As to the bolded, not only does he practice his hypocrisy in the manner you have insightfully called out but, let me add to your list an example which is horrifyingly macabre. As mentioned in the thread starter, our deep feeling President gets up on national TV and has an apparently spontaneous emotional breakdown while recalling the kids who were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School. I am still unclear if he is mad at murderers or mad at guns BTW. None the less, to add the necessary drama he has his epically cinematic breakdown. Here is what I find blazingly ironic about it. Not that other Presidents (and voters) don't share responsibility, but just since he took office the US has seen so-called doctors take the blade to a number somewhere north of 7 million unborn babies for mostly convenience sake. My question; where are the tears for the 7 million, on his watch? Those 26 precious and otherwise innocent slain at Sandy Hook are no less real than the unfortunate 7 million, that's for sure.

The deal with Guantanamo is much different. See, the liberal rationale is so shallow it really can be encapsulated within the daily talking points. Thus, we can get to the bottom of things sometimes by listening to what's being said. In this case, every last lib says that Gitmo is a recruitment tool. Agreeably, that is so unremarkable and shallow as to preclude it from passing muster for a question on "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader." But, that is the liberal mindset. That's why Mr Obama went to the world on his apology tour, kind of a forerunner of the Clinton State Department's Russian 'reset button.' It's as if all we have to do is act nice and the rest if the nations will follow suit. Such was the thinking of the events at Benghazi, we dare not roil up the natives for fear they will commit mindless mayhem and murder. Which suggests of course, that they are not responsible for their own actions. This flies in the face of the notion that all mankind has evolved and is standing together on the threshold of a great brotherhood, does it not? I don't want to be brothers with a guy who would put a rocket propelled grenade through my picture window for cutting over on his grass six inches, LOL.

More particularly however, liberals are eternal pacifists. They would have ceded to Hitler and Hirohito's demands causing the world to descend into chaos ahead of schedule. (The coming apocalypse) There is no such thing as 21st Century thinking. And large scale war is not a passé notion that exists only in civilization's rearview mirror. Therefore, though delusions of grandeur and the voices in their liberal heads tell them otherwise, mankind, owing to his own carnal nature, will not allow himself to be led to some utopian brotherhood.

At any rate, rather than face the threat which has plagued this world since Biblical times, liberals believe we should shut down Gitmo and retreat behind US borders. But, not before we pay to import millions of the Arab World into our neighborhoods and tens of thousands of those from Syria. :please:

I actually meant to put in my post about the number of unborn babies but was in a hurry and accidentally left it out. Thanks for reminding me. I haven't seen his tears for that, or for the victims of crime by the illegals in this country yet. I'm still confused or whatever this emotion is over the Attorney General going to CAIR and saying her "greatest fear" isn't ISIS but the backlash to muslims over the shooting in California. When did we stop worrying about the victims of crimes? Just like those that support BLM but call others that protest terrorist. I seen that Germany only sent 149 officers to stop the Migrant rape, but sent 1500 officers for the anti-rape protest. At least one thing is certain, this way of thinking is growing and must be stopped.