Orwellian, when you make blanket statements comparing a guy who managed to stay in power through intimidation and downright bullying and terror tactics to executive orders a US president uses, you negate a lot of other arguments you make that may have some sense.
As an example, if you read more about the executive order he's talking about using for "going around Congress" to get his appointees in place, you would know that that is only a temporary fix for him - those appointees still must be approved, the next time the congress is in session. Considering that he's not doing that right now, it would be later in the year and he will likely face extreme opposition for some of those appointments that he would try to slip by when he doesn't have nearly the strong majority he does right now.
In our country, the president is not above the law. He, like every other person elected to office, can use things allowed by law in anyway they see fit - until the law is changed. Recess appointments are there so the government can keep going even when Congress isn't in session, but those appointments are always going to be reviewed. It's called checks and balances.
As far as any other executive decree issued, they must be constitutional and not against the law.
Your comparison of what Obama is possibly going to do is much like your statement that Americans have killed 1 million Iraqis in the war - even though that particular estimate was made by a group (very independent, to be sure) who only interviewed some 1700 households, while another, more comprehensive poll that interviewed some 9000 households came up with a number around 100K deaths (and comes close to other polls and estimates made) - many caused by terrorist bombs and violense, much less by drones and US gunfire directly. And btw - both polls on the death toll I am talking about agreed in more or less on the percentages of roadside bombs and other terrorist violence, as opposed to US troops killing people through drones or incidental fire.
I'm not saying that 100K is an acceptable figure either, but also, you always fail to mention the other side - how many people Saddam himself killed during his reign. Neither one making a wrong or a right, but you present only what you want to to make your points.
And just to make antoher statement - I abhor the way that Bush got us into that war - there is no doubt in my mind that he and his cronies (including Powell) distorted facts out of all recognition to make their point.
You are so anti-US that you find the most extreme position and pursue it to the detriment of your argument.
The funny thing is, you don't even talk about (at least I haven't seen it) the fact that the Obama administration is going down the same path as the Bush administration related to civil liberties and tryingto argue that cell phone users have no reasonable expectation of privacy related to the whereabouts of their phones at any time and the government should not need a search warrant to get that information.
THAT is truly something despicable.
As an example, if you read more about the executive order he's talking about using for "going around Congress" to get his appointees in place, you would know that that is only a temporary fix for him - those appointees still must be approved, the next time the congress is in session. Considering that he's not doing that right now, it would be later in the year and he will likely face extreme opposition for some of those appointments that he would try to slip by when he doesn't have nearly the strong majority he does right now.
In our country, the president is not above the law. He, like every other person elected to office, can use things allowed by law in anyway they see fit - until the law is changed. Recess appointments are there so the government can keep going even when Congress isn't in session, but those appointments are always going to be reviewed. It's called checks and balances.
As far as any other executive decree issued, they must be constitutional and not against the law.
Your comparison of what Obama is possibly going to do is much like your statement that Americans have killed 1 million Iraqis in the war - even though that particular estimate was made by a group (very independent, to be sure) who only interviewed some 1700 households, while another, more comprehensive poll that interviewed some 9000 households came up with a number around 100K deaths (and comes close to other polls and estimates made) - many caused by terrorist bombs and violense, much less by drones and US gunfire directly. And btw - both polls on the death toll I am talking about agreed in more or less on the percentages of roadside bombs and other terrorist violence, as opposed to US troops killing people through drones or incidental fire.
I'm not saying that 100K is an acceptable figure either, but also, you always fail to mention the other side - how many people Saddam himself killed during his reign. Neither one making a wrong or a right, but you present only what you want to to make your points.
And just to make antoher statement - I abhor the way that Bush got us into that war - there is no doubt in my mind that he and his cronies (including Powell) distorted facts out of all recognition to make their point.
You are so anti-US that you find the most extreme position and pursue it to the detriment of your argument.
The funny thing is, you don't even talk about (at least I haven't seen it) the fact that the Obama administration is going down the same path as the Bush administration related to civil liberties and tryingto argue that cell phone users have no reasonable expectation of privacy related to the whereabouts of their phones at any time and the government should not need a search warrant to get that information.
THAT is truly something despicable.
