Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obama Bypasses Congress, Appoints 3 To Labor Board

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 4, 2012, 4:27 p.m. EST by anonymoux (70)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Is this man the "True Radical" ?

124 Comments

124 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 12 points by buphiloman (840) 2 years ago

Thank God Obama is doing something, however paltry to defend consumers and laborers from our predatory and immoral crony capitalist system of wealth exploitation. God knows the GOP obstructionists are fighting tooth-and-nail to keep us even more ignorant and oppressed.

Bernie Sanders for President 2012!!!!

[-] 5 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

I like Bernie, he speaks for me!

[-] 4 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

Yeah if anything I'm mad because it took him two years to come the stunning conclusion that maybe he ought to appoint someone to the freaking department he created with the approval of congress.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Well said.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Yeah, Obama is scrambling to get back all the votes he lost in the last 3 years by dutifully doing the bidding of the 1%, which stands to reason as his Party, the Democratic Party, is nothing more than one of the two wings of the one party of the 1%. As the title page of this web site says, we don't need Wall Street or politicians to build a better society. What we need is each other an solidarity.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Just more fluff to keep people believing. Meanwhile, more innocent kids and women are killed in our attacks over seas. And allowed NDAA to pass.

Anyone who is still believing at this point is a clone.

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

Well said.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

It's a smoke screen.

[-] -1 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 2 years ago

We would be better off with a dog catcher in the oval office. This guy is screwing up our country beyond repair.

[-] -2 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Bernie the commie? No thanks.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 2 years ago

Well, I wouldn't have expected someone living in 1956 to understand Bernie Sanders, though I am a little amazed to find that internet signals can travel backward in time.

[-] -2 points by queenann (-220) from New Rochelle, NY 2 years ago

Obama is the problem. He has done nothing but spend. The USA needs to dump him, Michelle and David Axelrod in 2012.... before we are all homeless, while Michelle is buying $ 2000.00 sun dresses. Stop with the partisan BS. Think independently. Your post exhibits evidence of mind control.

[-] 3 points by sinead (474) 2 years ago

Why is every criticism of Obama met with a "Yeah but GWB did...."

Why is it automatically assumed that a criticism of Obama is a signal that the poster was a supporter of GWB?

Isn't it in the realm of possibility that someone can express their disagreement with what Obama does without having an ulterior motive? Could it be that they are not a supporter of the right, that they just don't like what Obama is doing???

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

I agree. I voted for Obama and I am disgusted with his policy. He has practically done the opposite of everything he said to get elected. He is a globalist puppet who has a congress that pretends to be partisan. How convenient for Obama. Now he can follow the globalist plan and say to the American people that they just wouldn't work with him. He has just continued the same BS policies of G dub but with a black face to make his crappy policy more digestible to the black community. He has helped to gut the constitution and bill of rights.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Do you think it's going to help if you vote republican next time around?

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

Absolutely not. If Ron Paul is not the republican nominee, I will probably end up voting for Obama again. At least I know he is political garbage. Romney is another corporate "whore".

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You guys really need a third party. It would help stir things up.

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

Yes for sure. I think Paul would most certainly run Independent if he doesn't get the GOP nod.

[-] 0 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Yea really, Obama can keep pointing fingers all he wants, but fact is that he does not deserve to keep his post. He is doing just enough (in an election year) to placate his democratic base just enough to convince them not to vote republican.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

If there were any way to dump Obama without getting Mit Romney, I would agree here. But under the Bush Administration this country came very close to goose stepping, jack-boot in your face, Fascism. I think that is the real possibility we are flirting with if we have another Republican Administration. Don't think what happened in Germany in the 30's can't happen here. Anyone remember that Ted Kennedy was put on the no-fly list as a suspected terrorist? That is fucking scary, when an elected left-wing Senator is being equated with being a terrorist! I hate the way Obama has backed down from any credible progressive stance, but the alternative is truely very scary to me. I think another Republican Administration might really be the end of even the semblance of civilization in this country; that it might lead to armed repression and revolution. That's a pretty high price to pay for eschewing party politics as just one arm of an effort to create a better society.

[-] 1 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

I agree I would rather have Obama than Romney. We need to vote out this repelican congress and see what kind of policy we get when he has a congress that will be bipartisan. Then we will see his true colors shining through.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes, if we push Congress to the left, his policies will only be revealed as what they are - center-right, to right-wing. Then people will be forced to vote in the next election on whether those policies are good enough. Certainly this should be at least PART of what we must do to actualize change. I think the time for debate is coming to an end. We know what we want - how do we get it?

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

yea but NDAA?

The illusion of democracy vanished with Obama's election, the only way to get it back is send people like him packing, if those people spew political hot air and whore themselves out to the establishment. If you send a message of "sure no problem, please lie to me, just try not to be as bad as the other guy" what is that saying to future Obamas?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

The process of actually gaining political power has some unfortunate complications. You didn't answer the question concerning whether it comes down to a choice between Obama and Romni. You see, in order to win, you have to be cagy, and stay in there for the long run; not just take an attitude that supposes things are other than they are.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Honestly I don't see much difference between Obama or Romney... one is Christian the other is a Mormon, both are corporate whores... a liberal republican vs a conservative democrat...

Hopefully Ron Paul wins the nomination and we can talk about change again, if not the Justice Party is starting to look like a good alternative.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I don't believe either R.P. or "The Justice Party" will win the presidency. Personally, I would rather see even Romney than R.P. He is more right wing than even the mainstream Republicans.

[-] 1 points by jinzhao (68) 2 years ago

The thing to do would be to impeach Obama, sending the message to any subsequent president that the same fate will be his, or hers, if they don't get us out of this mess. Hopefully Biden would get the message.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Nono!

alexrai !

I thought you were one of the good guys!

Here, follow what Congress did with the budget bills, both this year and last year.

On The National Defense Authorization Act

The Congress tied his hands by attaching bad policy to a spending bill that pretty much had to pass. They did it not once, but twice with the specific issue of military detentions both times.

Then look at what the Pentagon PR campaign looks like to average citizens:

Spec.Ops Gumshoes and the NDAA

[-] 0 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

haha well I don't know about being a bad guy; defiantly not a fan of Obama though.

Politicians like him exist because they know they can lie and keep getting elected as long as people remain fearful of the alternative, if we want politicians who do what they say there is only one thing more powerful than corporate influence, and that is to make it clear that their career is over when they decide to stop representing the people.

I agree those provisions should never have been attached to a defense spending bill, but on the other hand I don't care what they were attached to, the only answer to the question is VETO that shit.

Or at the very very least a "pass my jobs bill now, or I am going to veto every military spending bill that crosses my desk until 2016."

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

The President is a Constitutional scholar.

The First Article of the Constitution, Section 8:

  • The Congress shall have power,

    • . . .

    • To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:

The authors never envisioned a Judicial system as highly evolved and complex as ours, nor a Military Industrial Complex intent on asserting its authority in matters of law.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Sure, but how do you deal with a congress full of republican special interests?

You can't work with them; so there is really only one way, and that is to sit there and veto every piece of special interest legislation until they get the message.

Do it enough times, and corporations will stop throwing money at republicans because they will realize that there are better investments elsewhere. A president needs a backbone, not a teleprompter from which to read speeches written by others after being vetted by 15 different people

Its probably a moot point anyway, if military spending does not cease immediately the US dollar will cease being the worlds reserve currency leading to debt default and complete economic collapse... and then military spending will cease immediately. Maybe Obama knows that and is just trying to hurry the process along a bit faster.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Its probably a moot point anyway, if military spending does not cease immediately the US dollar will cease being the worlds reserve currency leading to complete economic collapse... and then it will cease immediately. Maybe Obama knows that and is just trying to hurry the process along a bit faster.

really? I had not heard that.

In fact, it kinda sounds like something dreamed up by some right wing think tank, designed to push the left even further left, and create an opening for the right to assume the Oval Office come election.

The President did just announce a significant downsizing of the military, so I'm not sure how that figures into any calculation postulating that the President is attempting to hurry what you suggest.

If we don't end bushite tax breaks for the one percent, and end corporate welfare, then what you suggest might become a possibility.

Don't know - I'm not an economist.

But you are absolutely correct -

  • repeliKans

  • "You can't work with them;"

no you can't.

The movie Inside Job makes it quite clear: Conservatives set to implement financial deregulation as far back as the late 1970s, and part of that process included the appointment to the Supreme Court

  • Conservative Activist Judges

And it is clear - as that process began to bear fruit, Conservatives began screaming about Liberal Activist Judges, and thus distract the public from their process of Activism toward deregulation.

  • repeliKans are liars

  • repeliKans with their process of deregulation have fucked the American public.

  • repeliKans continue to lie about Global Warming

  • repeliKans will soon reap the harvest they have sown

The people are coming. No one can stop it. No one can avoid it. And in fact, we will all benefit.

Except of course, those who get in the way. Then there's just no tellin'.

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Yes, the repelicans are going to get a very sharp wake up call one day; we do after all breath the same air and live on the same planet.

My background is in finance, despite my unwavering support of OWS. The idea was actually dreamed up by a right wing investor type, but having read his argument I do actually agree with him.

I can't remember his name, but he took the position that the end is inevitable, and the time is now to start moving money out of the USA and into investments insulated from the US dollar fallout, like gold. This way if you have money, the government won't be able to seize it when it goes bankrupt.

Essentially the government does not make enough money through taxes to pay off its current debt or keep up with interest. This is fine when you can print trillions of digital dollars to make up the shortfall, but the reason the US does not enter hyper-inflation like Zimbabwe when it prints money is because commodities like oil are priced in US dollars, and foreign banks / governments have large reserves of US dollars.

China is currently quietly divesting itself of US dollar holdings by purchasing large amounts of capital all around the world in US dollars, other countries are getting tired of holding US bonds which have been depreciating for years, the IMF is talking about creating a new world currency for commodities.

The end is near my friend. The instant the migration away from the embattled US dollar hits the tipping point will be the same the day the government defaults on its interest payments, and the same day panicked foreign banks sell off their (now unnecessary) large US dollar reserves causing a massive crash in the value of the dollar which makes it impossible to pay debt...

...and the price of everything from Chinese stuffed toys to Oil and other commodities (now priced in a non-US currency) will appear to hit the stratosphere, making it basically impossible to run the country, let alone operate a military empire.

If that isn't bad enough, considering that nearly all American manufacturing is done overseas, a sudden spike in import prices will be devastating, especially in a situation where no-one will touch your bonds with a 10 foot pole, leaving the government powerless to do anything about it...

Basically, moral of the story is that you can not continue to print money and sell bonds forever without severe consequences. The fed is basically patching things up with an assuring smile on its face, but they are just delaying the inevitable.

You're guess is as good as mine what the fallout will look like, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see a break up similar to the USSR given the bitter political divisions which exist.

I can say with certainty that if reserve status of the dollar is lost, for the rest of time the US dollar will reflect the demand for US imports, and the fed will no longer be able to print massive amounts of money without causing hyperinflation.

On the plus side, there will be a real opportunity to start over again and build a better place for future generations.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm not an economist - so I can't really comment.

I would point out that among conservatives the concept of smaller government - and hence, no regulations - has been a core theme for a long time.

And paulites want to abolish FEMA . . .

All of which makes me wonder - if your right wing friend has this argument, why not devise a plan to prevent the catastrophe he predicts?

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Following those same thoughts, I didn't come to the conclusion that they are planning a way to prevent the catastrophe, but are rather planning ways they can survive it and make a profit at the same time. A poor man's disaster is a rich man's fortune, i.e. Wall Street meltdown.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I think that was my point, from a slightly different perspective, that being the advantages international corporations may perceive in the collapse of the US government.

If that is the case - I think they must not understand the people very well.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Understanding people and giving a shit about them are two separate things.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

my point was that if international corps think there is an advantage in economic chaos like that presented above - if they think they can somehow keep a lid on the public as they apparently have done in Greece -

I think they will find they are mistaken.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

As JadedCitizen says, they have no intention of preventing it. They are going to keep smiling until the thing comes unhinged, and in the meantime the fed is throwing around money at their buddies, who if they are smart, are putting it into precious metals.

I suspect the government knows what is happening and that is why they continue to spend billions on defense. If they do not do it now, it will be much more difficult to buy tanks when the dollar becomes worthless.

Similarly, I think the war drums beating about Iran/Iraq reflect the reality that the US is dependent on oil, and wants friendly foreign governments who will continue to price it in US dollars. If American hating middle eastern countries decide to use Russian currency instead, it would be devastating. The US would have to purchase Russian money (who given the state of the US economy probably wouldn't even want to sell it for more than 10 cents on the dollar) and then purchase oil with the Russian money. Big trouble for massive country terminally dependent on oil.

The one economic law you can not skirt is that printing money = inflation, unless your currency is artificially high partly due to China's currency manipulations, and the reserve status of currency. Gold is not at 1700 an oz because people like gold that much, people are getting the hell out of US dollar holdings.

I guess the short answer to your question is that it is 10 years too late to reverse the process Regan started in the 1980s, and we are now just along for the ride.

It would take massive program cuts, a cessation of military spending, legalizing and taxing drugs (along with the rich), and actually paying off debt. The economy has been whittled down so badly over the past 20 years, that its an insurmountable hurdle. Might just as well print money, insulate yourself from the consequences, and wait it out.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I've seen a post indicating that after WWII we had a higher debt to gdp ratio - and we worked it out just fine.

If that is true - and if that is what this perception depends on - the debt to gdp - then I would suggest it is just another lie spun up by repeliKan fucks who have this as their goal, hoping that they can make it happen by refusing to either end bushite tax breaks for the one percent or tax loopholes.

It could also be about the campaign for President too - they did tank jobs and market numbers with their brinkmanship in the runup to the August debt ceiling deadline.

Like I said, I'm no economist - so I dont' really know. But I do believe that if Wall Street really does fuck the American economy and the public this hard,

  • there will be hell to pay

We are, after all, among the most violent populations on the face of this planet.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

Hear, hear!

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Has it occurred to anyone that Obama can't push a radical agenda, even if he wants, to under current political circumstances? In order to do that he would need allies, and that's what this movement should provide, a radical political entity demanding real change. We have already seen a hint of this in recent fines handed out to guilty banks and corporations. Obama has to have more political clout to push a reform program. The 1% have Congress, the Supreme Court and the money to finance elections. At the moment Obama is a lame duck president, forced to push legislation right-wing enough to please those who really have the power.

That's why this movement needs to get it's act together and address the leadership issue.

[-] 3 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

As if Bush didn't make any recess appointments ... ignorant partisan hack.

[-] 1 points by anonymoux (70) 2 years ago

why are you so quick to call someone ignorant? i just asked a simple question. If Obama is a"True Radical", that would be a good thing, knowing that Obama is following the Alinsky model would make me feel alot more comfortable with the amount of power he has at his fingertips. If Obama is not a true radical then he may be one of the most dangerous men on the face of the earth right now. He just needs to come forward now. By the way, you should be careful who you call an ignorant hack. Seems to me we should be on the same side here.

[-] 5 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Anyone who thinks BO is a radical is an idiot. He's had 4 years and the most radical thing he has done is deny citizens constitutional rights. He's not a radical, he's a corporate fundamentalist.

[-] 1 points by anonymoux (70) 2 years ago

hmmm

[-] -3 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

He just wants to get things done at breakneck speed, making it very difficult to undo the mess. He loves power in the hands of unelected people he has appointed, like the many czars, and now this labor thug. Boeing will never build the plant in a right to work state, effectively stomping on the rights of many potential Boeing employees.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Considering he has thoroughly pissed off every other demographic which voted for him, from environmentalists to medical marijuana patients to the end-the-war crowd... he better be doing something to appease the labor movement in an election year because without their support he is toast.

[-] -3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I thought he was a centrist attorney with a poor grasp of how our economy has reached this stage of utter collapse.

I would suggest that when, as candidate he said he would pull out of Iraq he did indeed behave in a completely radical manner for someone running for the Oval Office - and I would note that doing so had a direct impact on our foreign policy at that time:

  • within just two or three days the Bush admin came out and embraced the possibility of a timeline for withdrawl - something they had steadfastly refused to do on a variety of grounds on numerous occasions.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Congress was in session asshole. Learn the fucking rules. It's not out of session until the congress ends it for three days. The person he appointed had already been voted down. One must give the president credit however, as he has stated he will make every attempt to get his agenda through, by bypassing the congress. He has clearly done that, in complete disregard to precedent.

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

In a 1905 report that the Senate still considers authoritative, the Senate Judiciary Committee recognized that a "Recess of the Senate" occurs whenever the Senate is not sitting for the discharge of its functions and when it cannot "participate as a body in making appointments." The committee cautioned that a "recess" means "something actual, not something fictitious." The executive branch has long taken the same common-sense view. In 1921, citing opinions of his predecessors dating back to the Monroe administration, Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty argued that the question "is whether in a practical sense the Senate is in session so that its advice and consent can be obtained. To give the word 'recess' a technical and not a practical construction, is to disregard substance for form."

The Senate, of course, does not meet as a body during a pro forma session. By the terms of the recess order, no business can be conducted, and the Senate is not capable of acting on the president's nominations. That means the Senate remains in "recess" for purposes of the recess appointment power, despite the empty formalities of the individual senators who wield the gavel in pro forma sessions.

Washington Post

[+] -7 points by Charles99 (15) 2 years ago

Bush didn't ever do a recess appointment when Congress wasn't in recess. That is what Obama just did. Looks like you are the ignorant one.

[-] 8 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Another moron echoing Rush Limbaugh bullshit ...

According to the Congressional Research Service ... President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments. wiki

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

The President should have made even more appointments in this manner.

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I hope that this is his shot across the bow of the Rs -
As the opening salvo -
not "I am running for President of the United States"
but as
"I AM President of the United States and I will no longer let the Rs damage our nation for political and financial gain"

[-] -1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I agree

[+] -4 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

This guy was voted down in an up or down vote. Has anyone done this before, putting someone in anyways, that could not muster approval? I couldn't find anything. Obama has stated clearly that the minority party can fuck off. What happens when the dems are in the minority? The rules need to be respected. He's going off in a dangerous way.

[-] 3 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

An "up or down" vote is a straight vote. Senate rules require a super-majority on appointments. This is not a straight "up and down" vote, as a simple majority does not "win" (as it does in every other US electoral process).

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Who was voted down?
by whom?
why?
who did not give approval?
and where did "Obama has stated clearly that the minority party can fuck off." where? when?
OR

You can't handle the truth!

[-] -1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

For a supposed defender of the constitution you sure don't mind pissing on it by the fascsist with the big ears.

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are a fool.

this movement is in large measure all about holding people accountable - this nation has incurred debt - debt due to war, debt due to the economic collapse - and you would have us refuse to pay that debt.

you would have us tank the economy even further with such nonsense.

Revenue will be raised to meet our common obligation.

And we will hold those accountable for promoting fiscal policy and economic theory that has proven itself a sham.

The movie Inside Job makes it quite clear: Conservatives set to implement financial deregulation as far back as the late 1970s, and part of that process included the appointment to the Supreme Court

  • Conservative Activist Judges

And it is clear - as that process began to bear fruit, Conservatives began screaming about Liberal Activist Judges, and thus distract the public from their process of Activism toward deregulation.

  • repeliKans are liars

  • repeliKans with their process of deregulation have fucked the American public.

  • repeliKans continue to lie about Global Warming

  • repeliKans will soon reap the harvest they have sown

The people are coming. You can't stop it. You can't avoid it. And in fact, you will benefit.

Unless of course, you get in the way. Then there's just no tellin'.

[-] -2 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

You sir are mentally retarded and true believer in our FACSIST president.

[+] -4 points by Charles99 (15) 2 years ago

Xaive, you obviously don't understand, what Obama did, he did a recess appointment when Congress was not in recess, this was never done by Bush. Get your facts straight.

[-] 5 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

In a 1905 report that the Senate still considers authoritative, the Senate Judiciary Committee recognized that a "Recess of the Senate" occurs whenever the Senate is not sitting for the discharge of its functions and when it cannot "participate as a body in making appointments." The committee cautioned that a "recess" means "something actual, not something fictitious." The executive branch has long taken the same common-sense view. In 1921, citing opinions of his predecessors dating back to the Monroe administration, Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty argued that the question "is whether in a practical sense the Senate is in session so that its advice and consent can be obtained. To give the word 'recess' a technical and not a practical construction, is to disregard substance for form."

The Senate, of course, does not meet as a body during a pro forma session. By the terms of the recess order, no business can be conducted, and the Senate is not capable of acting on the president's nominations. That means the Senate remains in "recess" for purposes of the recess appointment power, despite the empty formalities of the individual senators who wield the gavel in pro forma sessions.

Washington Post

[Removed]

[+] -7 points by JohnMarsden (47) 2 years ago

This ok's anything Obama does? This is your childish logic. Since Bush did some bads that means Obama has free reign to do whatever bad he wants....even though he ran on a campaign of hope and change and promised that he was different? God his supporters really are dumb.

[-] 5 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Because I equated BO with Bush, I support him?

"Childish logic" would be advanced physics compared to your completely unfounded assumption, which seems to be based on a highly partisan political bias.

[-] -3 points by JohnMarsden (47) 2 years ago

It doesn't matter who you support, allowing Obama to do whatever stupidity he wants just because Bush did some bad things is retarded logic and not validation regardless of what your politics is. How the fuck do you know I'm partisan myself? I bet you sit here making rants salivating at the fact that someone will call you a hack so you can emerge from your high pedestal and tell them you support no one. Great. All you do is bitch and whine but no solutions. How does that make you better than us?

[-] 4 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Why do you allow BO to do whatever he (or the corporations who own him) wants?

Try not to be such a fucking idiot.

[+] -5 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

they're dumber than you think, many of them will vote for him again.

[-] 4 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Do you have a better choice? Ron <gag> Paul, perhaps?

Although it would be interesting to see RP in a real debate with BO, you can be sure that will never happen.

[-] 2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

Ron Paul??????? he's a dangerous loon.

[-] 3 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

I was not endorsing the libertarian fraud, I was just pointing out how it would be interesting to see him debate the fraud currently occupying the White House.

<gag> is a choking sound ...

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

To do something in office you need to have people in government "with you", who are willing to work for the good of all.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Now for my dream - Obama appoints Russ Feingold or Joe Sestak to be Speaker of the House

[-] 1 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

Now there's a nice thought

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Republicans have shown outrage at Obama for using his recess appointment powers with Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Richard Cordray, and similar outrage is likely to follow the news of the NLRB appointments. But the past three Republican presidents also made recess appointments to the NLRB. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush each made three recess appointments to the NLRB, while George W. Bush made seven such appointments.

Republicans have spent the past year blocking nominations to the NLRB in an effort to keep the agency from functioning. Those efforts would have paid off soon, since after Craig Becker’s term on the board expired this week, the NLRB would have been reduced to two members, which is the number it had for more than two years from 2008 to 2010. This effectively shuts down the board, since the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that two members does not constitute a legal quorum, and thus, a two-member board can’t make binding rulings.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Let them rage.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

This would have been a good thing, except Obama intentionally waited until the GOP held a fake session - instead of being a real "recess" appointment, these are appointments held while congress is technically in session.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/obama-bypasses-key-window-to-recess-appoint-director-of-consumer-watchdog.php

If Obama had acted a day or two earlier, these recess appointments would have been legitimate. Since he allowed the GOP to stonewall, agencies run by these appointees (specifically the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau) will now operate under a legal cloud for the immediate future, which has the ultimate effect of weakening their regulation of industry. I believe this was a purposeful political calculation - a handout to the Finance industry, which hates the CFPB, while simultaneously allowing Obama to campaign on his tough stance, "fighting back" against Republican obstructionism.

We need to get corporate money out of politics

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Interesting, I agree; at the highest levels of politics things like that are rarely accidents. "How can I make it look like I'm doing something useful while keeping the donations flowing in?"

[-] 1 points by julianzs (147) 2 years ago

The collective bargaining would have otherwise been dead.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

He should be Radical long time ago

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Obama bypasses the all time low approval, all time high perception of most unethical profession - Do Nothing Congress, appoints 3 to Labor Board.

YEAH !!

[-] 1 points by wigger (-48) 2 years ago

Yes! Fuck democracy! Obama is our ruler!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by reckoning (53) 2 years ago

In short..Obama sucks!..

he is a fraud....and many still believe in him...

[+] -5 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

Doesnt anyone have anything to say about the obama and his own self serving interpretation of the constitution?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Recess appointments are written in the constitution. It's a pretty good document. You might enjoy reading it sometime.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

U.S Constitution Article 1 Section 5 Clause 4. what oabama did was illegal.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

There is no Article 5 Section I Clause 4. Article V has only one clause, and it has to do with amending the constitution.

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

It's Article I Section 5 , Clause 4.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That has to do with both houses of congress giving each other permission to recess longer than three days. It has nothing whatsoever to do with executive authority.

"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

No interpretation of the clause indicates anything illegal was done by this president.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Which one she asks and he answers, "the Original One"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxYDnYgQ5MQ

This is very important, he knows the truth and everyone else should as well.

It's not hidden.

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

regarding 0bama and what he said on the clip,............what a bozo.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Regarding which Constitution?

Nothing bozo about that truth. What's bozo is he knows it and has no intentions of restoring it or bucking those holding the Force Majeure .

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

The Constitution , from the beginning right through the Bill of Rights and ALL the ammendments.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

But, the key point is there are two, the original one, which provides no benefit to unenlightened masses, was altered and defaced. Obama knows this. It happened because of the holy dollars required to fight many wars.

Our nation has not been out of debt since 1835? The banksters and lawyers weren't having any part of our Republic being out of debt, as without debt, to them, and control of our money, they could never capture the Sovereignty of our Republic and control it, as they've been doing for years.

The first five seconds of that video, "which one" was the question.l

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

It would be if he committed that act with respect to the original one. He knows that.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/constitunfit.html

http://www.barefootsworld.net/constructive_fraud.html

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Now the thing to see is if they actually have a plan, if they take some sort of immediate and effective action. Just because an appointment has been made does not mean that the department is doing any work or any "good work".

[+] -6 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

he's a dictator.

[-] 2 points by anonymoux (70) 2 years ago

please define dictator. also please look up definition of radical

[+] -5 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

regarding the USA and it's Constitution, 0bama is disregarding it . That is a dictator. the dodd-frank bill which is law states that anyone named to the posts has to be confirmed by the senate. 0bama did what he wanted to do WITHOUT following the law.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Recess appointments are not subject to Dod/Frank, but to the constitution, which expressly allows them. There is no law-breaking going on here.

Ignorance of the law does not help, but hurts your argument.

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

the dodd -frank law requires that anyone appointed by the president to the board must be confirmed by the senate. Also in question is the current adimistrations definition of what a " recess "is. the current admistration has their own ( wrongful ) definition. It's 10 days, NOT the 3 .

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The Dodd/Frank law does not supersede the Constitution as it stands. A constitutional amendment would be required to do that.

The Eleventh Circuit, in an en banc decision in Evans v. Stephens held that the Constitution permitted both intrasession recess appointments and recess appointments to fill vacancies that existed prior to the congressional recess.

The house and Seanate were on recess for the required time, They were holding pro forma sessions specifically to illegally block recess appointments. Their bluff was called. The pro forma sessions were designed to, "through form, render a constitutional power of the executive obsolete," (Ruemmler) and that the Senate was for all intents and purposes recessed.

President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments.

Yeah, Obama is a real dictator compared to Clinton and Bush.

My ass.

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

Regarding the U.S Costitution,.................what 0bama did was in complete disregard of Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4. he broke the law.

  P.S. I have no interest in your ass.
[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

As you can plainly see, it has no bearing at all on what you're asserting. If you have no interest in my ass, stop blowing smoke up it.

[-] -3 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

Because the republican controlled House did not allow the Senate to ajourn,neither House was in recess. stop obesessing about yout butt.

[-] 0 points by anonymoux (70) 2 years ago

Yes. This just proves that our whole government disregards the law, therefor leaving us in a lawless state. the fish rots from the head. Obama is and has been systematicaly pushing every issue and every major point of division in our counrty to its very breaking point. Looks like some of his old community organizing tactics from his old days in chicago

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You have it backwards. Obama has been bending over to compromise and the response has been been more divisiveness from the Right.

He sucks not because he is exploiting or creating division, but because he doesn't haves the balls to consistently stand against Repelicans.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

I would agree. So many times I was waiting for him to come out swinging, you know, really angry, and he'd be so unemotional in his response.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

Compromise??????????? LOL

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is way past time to start pointing fingers and naming names as to who is holding-up/stopping progress. But I believe that Obama is starting to do exactly that.

He got done what he could get done during his 1st term. While doing that he also showed a spotlight on those who were battling tooth and nail to stop reform and recovery.

This is not a one man job. That is how the government is set-up. You need consensus to move forward.

So. Take a good look at who has been standing in the way of getting things done and moving on the right path! Now vote "THEM" out of office!!!!!!!!

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Agreed. When one side recognizes Grover Norquist as president instead of the person actually elected to be in the oval office, it undermines democracy, and makes the president less effective. And that's not the oval office's doing.

That said, Obama has not taken advantage of the bully pulpit. He has not effectively or consistently gone in front of the public to not simply plead his case, but condemn the mendacious and evil manipulations of those obstructing progress, Yes, he is beginning to now, a little. But I personally chalk that up to electioneering rather that steely conviction. His penchant for compromise above principles goes all the way back to his days as editor of the Harvard Review, and I don;t think the aloofness, reluctance to get down and dirty, or his unwarranted faith in the reasonableness of the opposition is going to change much.

What this country needs right now in a leader is either a son-of-bitch like Johnson, who can railroad and extort passage of what he wants through congress, or an FDR, who can charm and manipulate a way to do so.

Unfortunately we will likely have neither. Either we will have a lame duck president with little real power or, god help us, a right winger with a lot of it. (And I really fear what will happen to the makeup of the Supreme Court in the event of the latter. It would be a blow that could take generations to recover from, if at all.)

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Currently in many ways the Presidency is held Hostage.

Support passing of the line item veto.

Make the oath of office for every position in government binding with immediate consequences for failing to protect and support the People.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

AS much as I am tempted to support a line item veto under the current circumstances, I am too aware of how is can be abused when the shoe is on the other foot. So I can't support it as permanent procedure.

As to the second suggestion, it's a nice idea, but both implementation and subsequent enforcement would be impossible. Supporting and protecting the people can be interpreted to mean almost anything legally. Even now, the repelicans claim (dishonestly) to be doing just that. No mechanism in law can be used to prove otherwise, to determine insincerity.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Fraud and support for fraud should be easy enough to prove. If you have gotten corrupt influence out of the government it should be an easy standard to maintain. The hard part is cleaning house in the 1st place, which is what we are trying to accomplish here.

There is plenty of evidence of fraud in the economic meltdown, and yet the justice department sit on their thumbs. Why is that? Besides the fact of going after the source of piles of money being given to government it would also expose those in government that are complicit.

I don't fear the line item veto, as it's only purpose/use is to remove junk from potentially good legislation, the removal of junk that could not possibly get passed on it's own merits.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Line item vetos can effectively eviscerate any piece of legislation without having to go through the veto process. One can sign a bill and veto the line items for its funding, making the legislation moot. One can veto a line item and therby change the very meaning of a law. It is too easy: it circumvents checks and balances too casually. It was opposed by progressives when Repelicans were in power for good reason. Those reasons don't disappear now.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

I agree, too easy to line item veto the protecting provisions in a piece of already draconian legislation.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Or making more benign legislation draconian. As bad as the gridlock is now, I still prefer checks and balances.

[-] -3 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

Agreed!