BTW liberals didn't free the slaves... A republican did.

Seriously Rockman, teabaggers have been nothing but insulting and degrading (from day one...... fluff, even before day one) to our TWICE duly elected president. If their little feelings get hurt when someone else uses a word that they willingly gave themselves, then that's just too darn bad.

And it is nothing at all similar to the N-word. I'm gonna spare both of our time by skipping the dissertation, but both you and I know that is a completely BS argument.

BS argument #2.... Today's Republicans are NOTHING like 1980's Republicans, let alone the 1860s.

If the best you can do is claim credit for something that happened almost 150 years ago, by a guy that there is no way in HELL would get elected by your party today..... I guess that just says a lot about the "Grand" Old Party.

Are you going to claim that liberals were respectful towards George W Bush while he was in office? That they never mocked his intelligence, his way of speaking, or his physical resemblance to a monkey?

Lot of assumptions there...

No, I'm not claiming that.

Are you making an equivalency claim, that what a small percentage of the left did during the Bush Administration is the same as what the Tea Party (IE the driving force in the conservative movement) is doing now?

I mean, if you really do think that "Teabagger" is similar to the N-word, maybe you DO believe that all things really are equal.

Its worth pointing out, that Congressional Democrats DID vote for the Iraq War, among other failed initiatives. Maybe its just me, but back then the vitriol mostly came from the fringes, blogs and internet cesspools. These days, the disrespect comes from other elected officials as well.

One of these things is not like the other, as Sesame Street would tell us.

And Requiem.... maybe I can get an answer about the whole "Where you stood on President George W Bush using an Executive Order to subvert the 4th Amendment" thing.

How is that different? I mean, besides that actually happened, while this Obama EO thing is still all conjecture at this point.

Req is good at throwing these arguments out on the table, but things get out of his depth pretty quickly as soon as he's challenged. He is the troll version of the 'rabbit' in a distance race.

Of course.... You are right. I stand corrected =)

Good one, try harder archaic.

Req was your comment on who named the most to supreme court a question or you trying to make a point that it was supposedly Obama? :P

It took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on the 2nd amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...constitution/amendment02/
The Supreme Court supports the right to bear arms...

Why are you assuming all conservatives here have the same opinion as some guy you apparently heard on talk radio? Has ANYONE here called for the impeachment of Obama over the use of executive orders? Executive orders.... used by presidents since George Washington? NO. Should I assume you hold the same views as NAMBLA and ELF because you are a weak ass liberal?

can i vote for impeachment simply because of Obamacare?

Actually, yes. In this very thread, in fact. Monnex seemed to be quite clear in his call for the impeachment of Obama.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Well them, if monex said it, then we must start the impeachment process.

@rockman, since when did we start equating liberalism with tolerance?

Holy wow, Rockman

First of all, executive orders are not greater than the constitution. They can be struck down for violating current law, exceeding the president's authority, or for violating the constitution.

Second point, executive orders are legal when the work within existing laws, the president's authority, and within the constitution.

This brings us to the third point: the president may very well be able to use executive orders to attempt additional gun control. Likely targets of legal executive orders would be to break down administrative barriers to the spread of information that may be useful in fighting gun violence, to increase the enforcement of various statutes now on the books (to increase the priority on certain matters), and to build better working relationships among those agencies whose enforcement actions touch upon this issue. All of these possible executive orders have one thing in common, they deal with the way that government agencies operate. Agency operations are rarely legislated or adjudicated to be one way or another.

That being said, President Obama must take care that any executive order he issues on this matter does not exceed his authority.

This whole thread should clearly illustrate the politician's best method of keeping the U.S. Citizenry in a state of constant confusion and tension. By polarizing issues that should be clearly obvious to anyone with a little sense, they can obscure the clear views of their complete incompetence to run this country.

What we need to do is to start electing leaders instead of politicians.

For example, during the Hurricane Katrina debacle, the head of the FEMA was not an emergency expert, he was a lawyer.

Lawyers run this country and everyone here can't figure out why the U.S. is circling the drain. Unbelievable.

I think we need to have a new amendment to the constitution that allows for "firings" of elected officials instead of having to suffer with them until the next election cycle or resort to assassination as a political tool.

Kinda like how you run your countries in FFA, eh, Cerb?