It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama to sign executive order to ignite corporate competition

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: chrismarco




.who needs a cable box when you have the internet...


Thats key right there. This is not about helping the consumers this is about siding with the Winner down the road.

The online Oligarch (Google,netfilx,amazon) are gearing to put a hurting to the old way of thinking ISP/Content providers (Comcast,Verizon,Att).

Comcast is getting attacked on the ISP side by google fiber and some other upcoming wireless tech.

On the content side Comcast is getting attacked by cord cutters and new original content created by Netflix and amazon.

Our officials see the writing on the wal and they are siding with the likely winners which will be the online Oligarch.

It gives me greater hope to tell Comcrap to suck it and see them go down. Too bad the executives wont go to jail and will likely still get their bonus.




posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Not liking a president using executive orders like a King or Prince.

He's not a King. He's not a Prince. He's a president of a republic.


You forgot the one word to sum up our imperial leader (kinda danced around it) - Dictator wannabe



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Does he even consult with the congress before he writes an executive order?



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

the republic was lost in the war between the states, and a republican govt oh the irony. We now have a national democratic socialist govt. If only we could ditch the democracy wed be good.



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Gothmog

Does he even consult with the congress before he writes an executive order?

From what I have read , no. Thats why Congress is so upset. So , with that being said , he does fit the definition of Dictator at least a good part of it.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Not liking a president using executive orders like a King or Prince.

He's not a King. He's not a Prince. He's a president of a republic.


No, you've got a congress who act like a bunch of school kids that leaves no other option. Maybe whoever wins next time they will be grown up enough to not deflect everything just to try and score points and actually look fully at the proposals.


Score points with who? If you think they're scoring points with the people, you're not paying attention.


Sorry, I thought it was blindly obvious what I meant - Republican Senate scoring points off the Democrat president.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Gothmog

Does he even consult with the congress before he writes an executive order?

From what I have read , no. Thats why Congress is so upset. So , with that being said , he does fit the definition of Dictator at least a good part of it.


The Executive Orders are passed mainly because Congress won't budge on anything because they are acting and have acted for nearly four years like sulky children. At least state facts.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted
You are correct. However , ever thought there was a reason why Congress didnt budge ? Its called checks and balances.Which this ummm , lets skip that for now , seems to ignore.





posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Gothmog

Does he even consult with the congress before he writes an executive order?

From what I have read , no. Thats why Congress is so upset. So , with that being said , he does fit the definition of Dictator at least a good part of it.


The Executive Orders are passed mainly because Congress won't budge on anything because they are acting and have acted for nearly four years like sulky children. At least state facts.


Executive orders are not "passed". They are "deigned". The US doesn't have an Emperor, or a Dictator. We have a President, whose job is NOT to make law. His job is to execute law ("The Executive Branch"). The Executive Order is intended solely as an operational decree, not a legislative end around.

Congress acting like a bunch of asshole is not an excuse. Because, and lets be honest, the whole purpose of our system being the way it is was to make it where nothing could get done without a literal act of Congress. They are supposed to be "sulky children". In my opinion: they still create too many laws. I mean, if the role of our government is to continuously create new laws, how long before we suffocate under the weight of them? We already have over 600,000....how many more do you recommend?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Gothmog

Does he even consult with the congress before he writes an executive order?


Why would he do that? Its far easier to do all sorts of outlandish crap (like force ACA through without even reading the goddamned thing first) to create division, then point and whine about how divisive "they" are.

oO



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



Its far easier to do all sorts of outlandish crap (like force ACA through without even reading the goddamned thing first) to create division, then point and whine about how divisive "they" are.

The ACA is a law, not an executive order.
It carries the weight of law, an executive order does not.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



Its far easier to do all sorts of outlandish crap (like force ACA through without even reading the goddamned thing first) to create division, then point and whine about how divisive "they" are.

The ACA is a law, not an executive order.
It carries the weight of law, an executive order does not.






Phage, im pretty aware of that.

My point is: ACA is an example of divisive behavior on the part of the Presidents party, and its the kind of shenanigans that led to the GOP congress having an excuse to be divisive, too.

Im not saying the GOP would cooperate either way. Only that sending out your crony in Congress to say "We have to pass the bill to know whats in it" is not the way you spread good will among your constituents.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

ACA is an example of divisive behavior on the part of the Presidents party, and its the kind of shenanigans that led to the GOP congress having an excuse to be divisive, too.
Congress does not seem to need any excuse to be assholes. Don't put it on this admin because it's been an ongoing process.


Only that sending out your crony in Congress to say "We have to pass the bill to know whats in it" is not the way you spread good will among your constituents.
If you're referring to the ACA, that's not really an accurate statement. I think it would be closer to say "This thing is a monster. It is so expansive that those who wrote it don't really know what it means or what all its consequences will be but what's been happening in medical care so far is broken. Consider this a work in progress." You imply that the entire constituency is dissatisfied with the results. I don't think that's true. I think that people who were previously unable to obtain medical insurance at any price are not dissatisfied.

In some ways it may be similar to immigration reform. The existing laws sure ain't working but in this case, it's not a matter of pushing something through, it's a matter of refusing to do anything at all.

In any case, bringing up the ACA in a thread about an executive order would seem to be out of order.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



No, its not on topic with the OP. It was a reply to a post.


Im not bringing ACA into the topic. Its just an example of why asking if Obama consults congress before an EO is signed is silly. If you read my post, you can now forget that ACA was mentioned. It was just an example, Phage.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Can Obama issue an executive order making him a King or "Supreme Leader of the Union"?


Is that possible?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

No.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Why not?



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I see the usual conservative mindlessly bash Obama for anything he does echo chamber is underway again.


Sounds like another Democrat campaign ruse.


This was the most laughable part of the OP. Why would Obama care about the election outside of endorsing one of the candidates? Are you guys even trying anymore when it comes to this crap?

PS: It is the unthought out partisan snipes like this that are the reason the GOP is on the verge of imploding right now.
edit on 18-4-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join