By definition...Obama is a Dictator. Do you agree and if not can you prove that statement wrong.
Roger
2012/07/03 01:43:35
|
|
|||||
|
55 votes
|
|
56% | |||
|
32 votes
|
|
33% | |||
|
11 votes
|
|
11% | |||
By "executive action", not executive order, President Obama said his administration will not deport certain illegal aliens. A few days later he used Executive Previlege to refuse to turn over items lawfully requested by congress in the "Fast and Furious" investigation. These actions of refusing to uphold American law go along with many previous decisions not to enforce certain U.S. laws. Remember his administration being held in contempt of court over his refusal to lift the oil drilling moratorium in the gulf after the courts said he had no legal right to impose it? He has repeatly refused to enforce laws that he feels he wishes not too.
He has repeatedly taken actions and made policy without the authorization and funding by elected representatives and has in essence made his own. This is without a doubt the absolute definition of a dictator.
I saw a post that stated:
If President Romney were to step in the White House and immediately state he did not EPA and said his administration would no longer prosecute violations of EPA laws? What about any government organization that does not fall into the the realm of the Constitution i.e... DOE, Transportation, EPA, or countless others, that he could by Executive Order say his administration would longer fund. The liberal would be up in arms saying he was a dictator... No doubt about it.
Truth is that they would be right in saying so because that too would fall within the definition. This a country of laws and our elected represenitives are duty bound to uphold them, all of them. If they do not like one the work within the system to change or eliminate them. They do not do an end run around them or choose to ignore them or they are Dictating the law, thus being a Dictator.
He has repeatedly taken actions and made policy without the authorization and funding by elected representatives and has in essence made his own. This is without a doubt the absolute definition of a dictator.
I saw a post that stated:
If President Romney were to step in the White House and immediately state he did not EPA and said his administration would no longer prosecute violations of EPA laws? What about any government organization that does not fall into the the realm of the Constitution i.e... DOE, Transportation, EPA, or countless others, that he could by Executive Order say his administration would longer fund. The liberal would be up in arms saying he was a dictator... No doubt about it.
Truth is that they would be right in saying so because that too would fall within the definition. This a country of laws and our elected represenitives are duty bound to uphold them, all of them. If they do not like one the work within the system to change or eliminate them. They do not do an end run around them or choose to ignore them or they are Dictating the law, thus being a Dictator.
Top Opinion
-
No...the definition is incorrect, and he not being a Dictator
+16It isn't up to us to prove you statement wrong. Either your statement makes sense or it doesn't and yours doesn't. It is just more conspiracy theory BS that makes you look like a kook.
You may certainly disagree with this policy. You may disagree with a lot of things about Obama... or Bush... or Clinton... or *any* U.S. president. But none has ever been a dictator. A dictator uses "executive actions" on ALL aspects of the government, not just on *some* aspects of their PART of government enforcement.
A dictator does not have to veto laws -- because the dictator actually makes them. And enforces them. And judges the effectiveness of them.
Obama has not abolished Congress. He has not fired the Supreme Court and simply filled it with his own cronies. In short, he is not a dictator.
FDR came a lot closer than any other president, to being a dictator. He was willing to fill the Supreme Court with appointees favorable to the New Deal in order to guarantee they did not block it... so he would have essentially controlled two of the three branches of government by himself. Still... he would not have fully controlled Congress, so even then he was not a dictator.
And as an edit: Dictator is not always a "bad thing" a King is technically a dictator by "Divine right"
And Caesar was a dictator by the senate in a time of need... and Rome flourished, until the Senate assassinated him
Germany:Hitler(Unified Germany, and made them into a political, and economic superpower)
Rome:Caesar (Unified the warring cities of Rome)
United States: President Andrew Jackson (stopped the civil war from happening sooner)
Any action, order, veto, declaration or decision made by the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama II included, may be overturned by a 2/3 Majority vote of Congress.
Any legislation made by Congress and passed by the President may be overturned by the Supreme Court.
That is called Checks and Balances and this thread is Sophomoric. If you don't like something the President has done, lobby your Congressman to bring a motion to overturn to House Floor to instead of just crying about it on the internet.
Nothing Obama has done is new or groundbreaking since prior Presidents of both parties have done the same.. Funny how its fine when a GOP President does something but you losers whine like babies when Obama does the same....
2. have you been tortured?
3. What Rights have you lost ?
4. has your Religious Rights been taken away?
5. have your Gun Rights been taken away?
6. has your Free Speech Rights been taken away?
Obama is not a Dictator he is a President we Elect our Presidents every 4 years he is not a dictator just because you do not like how he runs the country doesnt mean he is a dictator if you think YOU can do a better job then Educate yourself and YOU Run for President
1) have you been arrested?
2) have you been tortured?
3) has any of your relatives been locked up in one of the "notorious FEMA concentration camps"?