sort by best latest
Yes he has. He has stated on more than one occasion how he wishes he could bypass Congress, only now he feels free to try because he does not need to face the voters again.
I fear the worst is yet to come.
Self governance is key to the survival of the US. "We the people" used to tell our government what we expect of them. Now our government dictates what's expected of us!
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
Jeff Berndt says
I couldn't have said it better and agree with you 100% - excellent answer.
Good answer, but again Obama has only been in office for four years. Claiming that he's issued fewer executive orders then presidents who were in office for eight years isn't a fair measure.
He also had fewer EOs than Carter, Ford, and Bush I, and they were one-termers.
This is a two term president. We have no clue what the future holds. It will be interesting to revisit this question in four years.
First it's not fair to compare Obama with 2-termers, 'cos he's only served 4 years; now it's not fair to compare him with 1-termers, 'cos he's a 2-termer?
Well, at least you got one thing right: "We have no clue..." :)
- See all 5 commentsHide extra comments
Each of the other presidents were in office for eight years. Obama has only been in office for four.
Incorrect, Bush Sr was 4 years. If they were in for 8 I divided their total amount by 8. Look it up at the link I provided, the numbers don't lie. "King" Reagan still has the most of the five.
I stand corrected. I was a bit young when Bush senior was around. Still we must wait for the current president to complete his term before we cast judgement on his wielding of the pen. Here we have 23 executive orders in one sitting.
I was young too. Who knows what the next 4 years will bring, he might come close to Reagan's 63 in 1982. So far Obama hasn't had more than 40 in one year but proposing 23 in January puts him on track to pass 40 easy.
- See all 4 commentsHide extra comments
Not to mention the least transparent in sometime. Virtually every administration has some form of a scandal. But the media largely ignores or plays defense for him. Fast & Furious, Benghazi etc. If that were Bush it would be on 6 pm news everyni
The media protected Bush until 2005/2006 when apologists could no longer defend him. His political team even abandoned him. Benghazi was swept under the rug because the 3rd world is going to war against us and we're trying to downplay it.
Bush never got a single day of positive coverage from the media exept for about a week after 911. So-called respected journalist like Dan Rather would put up false draft documents without a minutes worth of research.
I agree that Obama gets more than his share of the limelight. I've actually stopped watching the news as I feel that the commentaries provided by the media aren't worthe the wast of my time. I want new not personal opinions.
i have no problem with commentators being biased. But Hard news reporting is so biased to the left now that it's sickening.
I agree! I guess we're not intelligent enough to make up our own minds!
- See all 6 commentsHide extra comments
Old Empresario says
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Show
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Hide