PDA

View Full Version : The Supreme asshole threatens again to use EO



Mtn.man
04-01-2013, 15:11
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/03/9306-obama-threatens-to-use-executive-action-to-push-through-gun-control/

Ronin13
04-01-2013, 15:47
This is bullshit!
"The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership."
Okay, I'm fine with teaching gun safety and getting it into our kids heads that misuse can lead to really bad things, but I don't want the government doing that (See: DEA Agent shooting self in foot)... I'd rather it be donated to Eddy Eagle or something. WTF is "safe gun ownership" anyway? I would think this White House has no clue what that means, considering their startling track record with guns in the past (see: Fast and Furious). Hey Obama, tell me again how you know what's best for me when you take a VACATION EVERY GODDAMN MONTH!

BushMasterBoy
04-01-2013, 15:55
Feel free to email the dumbass at : president@whitehouse.gov

Dear Mr President,

Your gun control policy clearly shows that your head is so far up your ass that the Army, Navy , Air Force and Marines combined could not pull it out. Please do all Americans a big favor and resign from office. You were so much better off and we would all feel safer if you moved back to your beloved Chicago, or even better yet go on permanent vacation to Hawaii!

Signed, Bushmaster da Boy

roberth
04-01-2013, 16:08
He is doing what he does best, circumvent the written law, spitting on the constitution and all those who want to uphold the constitution.

palepainter
04-01-2013, 16:21
[pileoshit]

Ronin13
04-01-2013, 16:21
He is doing what he does best, circumvent the written law, spitting on the constitution and all those who want to uphold the constitution.
Yet no one has the testicular fortitude to do anything about it! [Mad]

rondog
04-01-2013, 16:24
Hey, I'm all for "gun safe ownership"! Is Obama gonna give us all money to help buy gun safes? That'd be swell! I want a nice big, fat, tall one.....

Mazin
04-01-2013, 17:59
I got bama-safe, I can here it now.



Sent from my Otterbox Defended Tactical iPhone using High Capacity "Clips".

Dingo
04-01-2013, 19:07
My fondest hope is that AF1 takes a spectacular swan dive into the pavement, erasing the first family and removing his entire genetic line from the collective gene pool.

zteknik
04-01-2013, 20:27
My fondest hope is that AF1 takes a spectacular swan dive into the pavement, erasing the first family and removing his entire genetic line from the collective gene pool.
But let the crew jump out first,and leave no more chutes behind..

BPTactical
04-01-2013, 20:42
And the above leave Biden and Pelosi in power.
No thanks

sabot_round
04-01-2013, 21:25
And the above leave Biden and Pelosi in power.
No thanks

Good point!! Trading idiots with bigger retards will not be wise.

Slapps74
04-01-2013, 22:31
Biden wouldn't make it two weeks in office before he had a meltdown.

sniper7
04-01-2013, 23:06
Biden wouldn't make it two weeks in office before he had a meltdown.
At least he could blast his shotgun off the white house lawn

motohooligan
04-01-2013, 23:13
[pileoshit]with teeth.

Aloha_Shooter
04-02-2013, 08:56
And the above leave Biden and Pelosi in power.
No thanks

I think that's the whole point in having Biden as his VP. It's not like the guy actually brings anything to the table.

Aloha_Shooter
04-02-2013, 09:02
Yet no one has the testicular fortitude to do anything about it! [Mad]

Just what do you propose anyone do about it? He's taking a page out of Andrew Jackson's book but really -- while Congress has the power of appropriations, the President DOES have the ability to redirect some current year spending without Congressional approval. The amount he's talking about exceeds that authority but all Congress can do is file a lawsuit that won't even come to trial for a couple of years (or so) while they tussle over Executive Privilege and whether it protects documents that record his intentions to circumvent the law. Impeach the bastage for maladministration? Dream on, Nancy Pelosi can block any impeachment motion and even if it DID make it out of the House (and believe me, the Dems would use and misrepresent it every which way as "racially motivated" in the 2014 elections), Harry Reid can get his acquittal 15 minutes after blocking all testimony and demanding a floor vote.

If you want to be effective at anything, you've got to get the vast majority of the public aware of this BS. Unfortunately, there's a large segment -- including people on this board -- who blame the Republicans first for anything (which ironically is similar to Obama's predilection for blaming America first for anything).

Ronin13
04-02-2013, 10:05
Just what do you propose anyone do about it?
I would think he is able to be arrested for abuse of power, failure to fulfill the oath of office, and going against the Constitution. Articles of impeachment may be hard to achieve, but one would think that there are other ways (I honestly don't know, other than military leaders placing him under arrest, but wouldn't that constitute a coup?). I mean, c'mon, they impeached Clinton for a BJ, this makes that look like.. well, a BJ.

losttrail
04-02-2013, 10:10
"Safe gun ownership" in Marxist-Muslim Obama terms is:

All guns owned by private citizens are confiscated and destroyed. The only relationship between guns and citizens would be:

1. For the citizens to view what they once owned in a museum. Maybe. Probably not.

2. For citizens to stare down the muzzle end of guns held by the police state (DHS).

losttrail
04-02-2013, 10:12
I would think he is able to be arrested for abuse of power, failure to fulfill the oath of office, and going against the Constitution. Articles of impeachment may be hard to achieve, but one would think that there are other ways (I honestly don't know, other than military leaders placing him under arrest, but wouldn't that constitute a coup?). I mean, c'mon, they impeached Clinton for a BJ, this makes that look like.. well, a BJ.

No, they impeached Clinton for perjury. Lying about a BJ.

Ronin13
04-02-2013, 10:57
No, they impeached Clinton for perjury. Lying about a BJ.
I know, but I was stating how trivial the whole ordeal was... who gives a shit if he cheated on his wife- there are worse things one can do as POTUS to get impeached, but it's not happening, like now for instance.

Rust_shackleford
04-02-2013, 11:01
He is doing what he does best, circumvent the written law, spitting on the constitution and all those who want to uphold the constitution.

As with all before him. He however has taken it to a new level.

Ronin13
04-02-2013, 11:10
As with all before him. He however has taken it to a new level.
Getting old... clearly not ALL before him. I understand G.W. Bush stole your college GF and you have a personal vendetta against him, but I don't know how you can lump every president before him as someone who spits on our Constitution.

Aloha_Shooter
04-02-2013, 11:33
Actually, they impeached Clinton for attempting to subvert the justice system. Lying under oath was one aspect of it but he attempted to manipulate the justice system to deny a citizen the right to due process. The fact he did it because he wanted to avoid the political consequences of it coming to trial right before the 1996 elections was the key factor, not whether he got a BJ or cheated on his wife. That's just more of the Democrat spin that got him off the hook with the American public. I guarantee you very few of the Republicans in favor of impeachment cared about his infidelities and a lot of them voted for impeachment reluctantly because they guessed at the future political damage of even going to trial with it. They went on with impeachment because a President subverting the justice system and lying under oath to deny a citizen the right of due process is NOT trivial.

Nixon had to resign because he tried to cover up political operatives breaking in to a Democratic Party office to gain political intelligence -- hell, he wasn't even directly involved until after it happened. The Republicans gave him up because they recognized that what he did was wrong -- something the Democrats have never ever admitted or done with Clinton's or Frank's or Waters' misdeeds. I'm annoyed and offended that people still repeat the "impeached for sex" BS 15 years later.

As an aside, this shows how even "conservatives" pick up the lying trash spread by the mainstream media.

Ronin13
04-02-2013, 11:43
Thanks for the info Aloha... and now I feel like [pileoshit]