Does this Surprise anyone?

FredHayek wrote: Like if Harry Reid establishes a precedent that the Senate can avoid the filibuster?

Just because he can change 200+ years of Senate tradition doesn't mean he wants to go there.

Let's get real here... The Senate has NOT had the "silent filibuster" for 200+ years. It was first used in 1853, and required that the person using the filibuster could keep the floor by speaking until cloture was successful. All Reid is trying to do is re-establish it the way it was. You have to stand and TALK... No more of this backroom obstructionism of picking up the phone and placing a silent hold on it.

And nobody is trying to "avoid the filibuster"...You want to use it?...Fine... You stand and talk, like it was done for over 100+ years.

Oh, sorry... There I go inserting FACTS into the discussion again...

homeagain wrote:

Grady wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So the "sky is falling" responses to what? The President merely stated that he may exercise his legal authority where applicable to reduce gun violence. What is so wrong with that? Are you saying that he should increase gun violence? Until he states exactly what steps he may take by executive order, it is mere supposition and hysteria to go into such hyperbole.

Grady wrote: While those of you who celebrate Obama taking action on firearms may think this is great. Remember he may be setting a precedence that will allow future presidents that same power over issues you would rather see decided in the Congress.

Just another instance of using a crisis as an excuse for a power grab.

While I did use Obama's answer to a question on gun control, gun control was not intended to be the thrust of this thread. My intent was to push the issue of another federal government power grab. To those of you who would celebrate another Obama executive order, beware of what you wish. Because the next time it may be another president with a completely agenda. The only thing they may have in common is the desire for more power and control.

Actually, the executive order has been implemented in the past....by BOTH parties. If you do the research you will see it is NOT that
unique. I will wait to hear the EXACT nature of the decisions before I will make a comment.

G.W. Bush signed 291 executive orders during his eight-year term of office. Where was the outrage then? Oh wait. There wasn't any cause he was a Republican. Not even the left objected.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barack ... Orders.htm

homeagain wrote: Actually, the executive order has been implemented in the past....by BOTH parties. If you do the research you will see it is NOT that
unique. .

No argument here, both parties are guilty of growing the reach and power of the central government.

Both parties are guilty? You make it sound like an Executive Order is something illegal, when it's perfectly within the purview of the Executive Branch.

Lincoln freed the slaves with an Executive Order (or so I've read).

Raees wrote: Both parties are guilty? You make it sound like an Executive Order is something illegal, when it's perfectly within the purview of the Executive Branch.

Lincoln freed the slaves with an Executive Order (or so I've read).

and obama uses them like candy, especially if he doesn't like the way things are going or things don't go his way. Now as some of you liberal like to do

insert here the typical "Bush did it so obama can to" or the famous "bush did it, where was the outrage then" crap. It is amazing that all some of you liberals know how to do, is always bring up what Bush did. Since you have not realized yet, Bush is not in office, obama is. This is not the Bush admin, it is the obama Admin.

navycpo7 wrote: and obama uses them like candy, especially if he doesn't like the way things are going or things don't go his way. Now as some of you liberal like to do

insert here the typical "Bush did it so obama can to" or the famous "bush did it, where was the outrage then" crap

FACTS are FACTS... If G.W. Bush signed 291 executive orders during his eight-year term of office, where WAS your outrage then?

LadyJazzer wrote:

navycpo7 wrote: and obama uses them like candy, especially if he doesn't like the way things are going or things don't go his way. Now as some of you liberal like to do

insert here the typical "Bush did it so obama can to" or the famous "bush did it, where was the outrage then" crap

FACTS are FACTS... If G.W. Bush signed 291 executive orders during his eight-year term of office, where WAS your outrage then?

What part of "this is Obama admin is not understood". Bush has nothing to do with it.

Sounds to me like there is someone else who used them "more like candy" than Obama... Facts are facts...

navycpo7 wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

navycpo7 wrote: and obama uses them like candy, especially if he doesn't like the way things are going or things don't go his way. Now as some of you liberal like to do

insert here the typical "Bush did it so obama can to" or the famous "bush did it, where was the outrage then" crap

FACTS are FACTS... If G.W. Bush signed 291 executive orders during his eight-year term of office, where WAS your outrage then?

What part of "this is Obama admin is not understood". Bush has nothing to do with it.

Of course this is the Obama admin, and he, like many presidents before him is doing what presidents do. The fact that people are upset about Obama doing it, when they expressed no outrage when other presidents have done the same is the issue Navy. Why is Obama not allowed to exercise the same rights as previous presidents? If Obama uses executive orders like candy, then Bush gorged on that candy, and I sure don't recall any outrage from the right about that, as is expected. But if you are going to hold Obama to a higher standard than previous presidents, then I have to wonder how much of the outrage is what he is doing versus how much you all just hate the man.....no matter what he does.

Bottom line? As has been posted several times, Obama won.....Romney lost. Obama is president, Romney isn't. Whine all you want, it doesn't change the fact that with victory comes all the rights and privileges of being president. When your guy/woman gets elected you can listen to us whine......deal??