Originally Posted by LiamSHepard
OK, I should rephrase not changed just ignored. The easiest, current, and one of the most controversial would be the requirement to carry health insurance.
Since when has the constitution stated that it is fine for the government to tell consumers what they must own. Perhap's FDR changed policy when he was in office pressing his "New Deal." Not to get into awhole other argument, this the bill does have some good points. Like allowing small businesses to get together to get lower premiums.
A lot of underhanded things happened and are happening as well as a lot of nothing (note any approval poll). The president himself stated that he would "force" thing to go his way. To name one, he did state that any medical personel refusing to perform abortions based on religious or moral views could be fired. Also, check his responses to the guy in charge of Louisiana regarding the whole BP incident. He has blocked every attempt made to fix the problem in that state. If this is not bullying or forcing, I do not know what is.
Based on what I have seen so far, I can only speculate as to what was done during elections.
Perhaps, you have some examples as to what he did not do to bully his way?
No offense my friend but you talk as if what Obama did was somehow the end of the world. . . I'm no Obama "d" riders but let me respond if I may. . .
First, democratic congressional representatives forced people to require health insurance. . .not Obama. You can vote anyway you damn well please. . .unfortunately even against the will of your constituency (hence the oxy-moron of democracy in general and the electoral college).
I cannot argue with the merit of your accusation b/c it's absolutely true. Congress did force people to require health insurance. . . but point your fingers in the right direction. Congress voted, not Obama. Universal health care which I'm sure was what I heard Clinton and Obama campaign on is well universal, required, total coverage, everyone,...etc. So no one should be surprised. Maybe unhappy, because the person who advocated your views lost the election, but not surprised.
I like people to be neutral and honest in their assessments. I don't know what I think until I've heard someone of the opposite, logical view's side. I don't like to argue on a partisan basis. So with that said I'm getting the feeling you're either railing on Obama b/c you think he's a liberal, socialist, who want to take the country from real Americans (white people, and those with money) and give it to lazy blacks and border crossing illegals. . . or you're railing on Obama b/c you have a legitimate opposition and a strict view of the language in the constitution.
If the later is correct, I understand why you're upset. However if that makes you upset, I'm sure the government requirement for car insurance, tags, inspections, social security numbers, ....etc. makes your angry. I'm also sure warrant-less wiretaps (without a partisan congressional vote in the light of day at least) makes you furious. Myself, I tend to find the government's spying, recording, and tapping the communications of its own citizens at free will and discretion with no transparent oversight more "controversial" and in need of a 'teaparty' than the government requiring health care for my daughter.
As for him forcing people to be fired for not performing abortions. . . uhhh yea. I don't agree with abortion, not at all, not a bit. However, last time I checked pro-choicers won Roe vs. Wade not lost. So... if you're a employee under the guidelines of the federal law. . . I think it's possible you can be fired if you don't follow it. If we're in Fallujah and we say ah you know. . . I don't agree with this war. This is illegal occupation. I don't think I feel like fighting today, I'm Buddhist. I think you'll find yourself court marshaled on charges of being absent without leave. Should it be that way. . . that's a arguement for lawmakers and the SC. . . but the President ordering court marshals for that situation and firings for those refusing abortions is not somehow irregular. I think "weed" should be legalized . . .but at the same time I finding it "irregular" that the POTUS would order the Fed. not to pursue medical marijuana cases. I agree with what Obama did morally.. . but I think at the same time legally it is absolutely wrong.
I think I've blabbered on long enough. . but as for the President "forcing" and "bullying" things to happen. . . umm I'm pretty sure that's what he does. He's the President. He doesn't ask for things unless it's a change in law, or something legally defined as in need of approval or designation by congress. The only thing he asks for is the American people's vote to access. . . get this. . . the "bully" pulpit.