Hold Onto It Beyond the Law’s Reach

Filed in:

Principalities and Powers (Government)

I heard the President once again criticize the senate for not compromising on health care.  He said that bipartisanship does not mean one side gets their way all the time.  He said he is willing to compromise some of his party’s desires to get a bill passed.

1)      Who said Bipartisanship is a worthy cause?

2)      Who said we want to pass this bill?

3)      Who said compromise of important points was a valid option?

4)      The president, when he believes things are important enough, declares he will sign an executive order.  Executive Orders are unconstitutional.  Presidents can’t make laws.  So, when he believes something is important he will hold onto it beyond the law’s reach.  Why can’t conservatives hold onto something within the law’s reach?

5)      The critics keep saying that filibustering is obstruction.  Yes, that’s the point.

6)      The critics keep calling the conservatives obstruction-IST. Only as long as the other side will admit in public that they are Social-ISTS.  Then, obstructionists are the type I would want to vote for.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: