The hyperbole in this thread is starting to annoy me. In point of fact, from a constitutional perspective, President Obama has been a much better president than his predecessor, in that he has remained deferential to the prerogatives of Congress. Our constitution gave us a relatively weak chief executive, and while Obama may be no model of constitutionality, he has made some effort to scale back the abuses.
Furthermore, he has been one of the most pro-gun (or at least not anti-gun) presidents we've had in decades. Gun control provisions around the country on both the federal and state level have been scaled back at a rate perhaps never seen since the advent of gun control.
Of course President Obama didn't sponsor this bill; it is impossible for a president to do so. That's why all the rhetoric flying around about how this is an obvious fascist power grab by Obama is preposterous. I don't see this bill passing in the first place, but even if it does in some neutered form, I frankly don't see Obama signing it. The backlash against it would be severe.
And just to reiterate, Lieberman was in the running to be the REPUBLICAN RUNNING MATE. If anything, this is a naked power grab by the neo-conservative camp, not the left.
"Wade" wrote:
WIth all due respect, the fact that he is an improvement over his predecessor is *not* sufficient. A dead ardvark with fleas carrying bubonic plague would have been better than his predecessor.
In my hyperbolic opinion, the country would have been better with the Oval Office empty than occupied by either Obama or his predecessor.
The reason America is so fucked up politically is that we have become a nation willing to settle for "the lesser of two evils".
I'm not sure anyone said this was a fascist power grab by Obama. People said Obama is a fascist. That's a very different thing. Hyperbolic, perhaps. But still a different thing.
"Nonstopdrivel" wrote: