Forum Post: Obama ignores Republican's and appoints head of Consumer Protection Agency
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 8, 2012, 1:45 a.m. EST by HitGirl
(2263)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Instead of cringing, folding or compromising, President Obama decided to be our President. He chose not to tolerate the Republicans' pro-forma Senate-is-in-session bullshit and appointed Richard Cordray as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The bureau can now pursue it's mission of preventing fraud and injustice. Obama put the Peoples business ahead of business-as-usual. He has not been a stellar president but this took guts and conviction. Obama has earned my vote! The Republicans should be ashamed of their dirty tricks and thug-politics.
BHO is AIG's man!
Obama will win. Romney is bought by the rich. He wants to get them more tax cuts while cutting the middle class to shreds.
Have you heard of "Prince of Bain"? Looks like Gingrich is going to have himself a piece of Mitt too. Payback for Iowa.
Oh yes, what a gem it is. Buckle up, this ride is going to get bumpy.
Funny how they all started out so civil and now it's like a white-trash episode of the Maury Povich show.
The guy in office with the big ears isn't bought by the rich? Hmm.
And will continue bombing people...
As disgusting as this may sound, I think Obama's hawkishness is a defense against the stereotype of the mincing liberal, unable to defend America against her enemies. For the record, I'm not saying that justifies anything he's done. It doesn't make it right. It's just the reality.
Exactly. He's a sell out. Too worried about politics, not worried about innocent kids and women getting ripped to shreds.
He's a sell out, but not a complete monster. At least that's the way I see it. I realize that's not a ringing endorsement.
Obama smiles and shakes hands with Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex. They also hang out on the weekends.
Just look at his Wall Street administration and his new campaign guy the Wall Street lobbyist. And look at all the war! Next stop Iran! WOOT WOOT! It will most likely be after the election of course.
Sorry but Obama is a fraud. I'll give him credit for doing a few good things, but overall he's just been another 4 years of the Bush administration.
[Removed]
[Removed]
These four men REQUIRE that you vote for Obama
If you don’t believe them,
……ask Newt Gingrich or John McCain about Citizens United
OR
……ask the family of any soldier killed in Iraq about bush v Gore
As I recall Obama publicly criticized the Supreme Court Justices for the Citizens United decision. I have video if that's what you need. That decision unleashes an unfettered stream of corporate special interest money into the Republican super-PACs and think-tanks. Note that the Republican controlled House has not introduced any legislation that would counter this atrocious Supreme Court decision.
Of course, Obama hit citizens united
BUT
the only way to stop it is with a constitutional amendment
there are at least 5 already in congress -
including Bernie Sanders'
The congress could pass legislation that makes donations completely traceable and transparent. That would help. Bet you won't see that coming out of the House.
Even the house Rs -
can they refuse 83% of their constituents?
can they refuse 76% of their R constituents?
We can continue,
OR
Are you ready
.....................FOR ACTION ?
Are you ready
.....................TO DO SOMETHING REAL ?
Are you ready
......................TO JOIN 83% OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS ?
We must not
DEMAND that we WANT THEM.to give to US
We must
DEMAND GOALS THAT WE WILL ACHIEVE FOR OURSELVES
Because of the Supreme Court's decision,
we cannot accomplish anything significant, without FIRST -
Overturning Citizens United !!!
Ending Corporate Personhood !!!
83% of Americans already agree on it
as stated in the ABC/Washington Post poll
In the the PFAW Poll -
Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.
IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ACT ----> JOIN US TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one task the MAJORITY.
Join the OWS Restore Democracy Working Group at
http://www.nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG
Plan details http://bit.ly/vK2pGI
regular meetings Wednesdays 6-8PM @ 60 Wall St – The Attrium
IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ACT ----> JOIN US TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
TO END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD
░░░░█░.░███░░.███░░█░..░█░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█.█░.█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░.█.█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░░░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░██░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
█░░░█░░█░░█░░░█░░░█░░░█░░░░█░░░█░█░.░█░░
..███░░ ░███░..░███░..█░░░█░░░░.████░░.███░░░
Have him sign an executive order nulling it.
Somehow I doubt that it is within the executive's powers to nullify Supreme Court decisions. How would that be a balance of powers?
I suppose you've not scrutinized the orders Obama has signed as well as all of them for the last 20 years.
Explain how any and all are Constitutional.
My understanding is that the executive should only sign such an order where he feels there is some question as to the laws Constitutional merit. Has it been abused? Most decidedly.
Did SCOTUS abuse the Constitution with this particular ruling? It would seem that way if the only alleged way to fix it is via an amendment. According to your explanation of when executive orders are lawful, this sure seems like the perfect opportunity to sign one.
The Prez adds signing statements when he signs something into law. It's because his agencies are in charge of enforcing those laws. The signing statements often reflect the president's view on the constitutional merit of the law and the extent to which the president's agencies are going to enforce it. The president does not issue signing statements on Supreme Court decisions.
And why can't he sign some arrest warrants, or at least pretend like he's pushing for them? I hate to see such dedicated fans without even toothpicks to stand on...... yanno?
You got it all figured out, however, you still evade why he doesn't undo citizens united with an executive order since clearly it falls under why you claim they are ok to do.....
Well your boy is supposed to be a Constitution expert yet only make public pomp by scolding them? Allegedly.
oh Lordy Lordy, had we had Al Gore as president during 9/11, we would have hugged OsamaBinLaden instead of hunting him down like the muzzy scum that he was.
you sound like someone who knows the answer this question
who was the last American president who started NO wars ?
America doesn't start wars, we finish them.
you sound like someone who knows the answer this question -
who was the last American president who started NO wars ?
Gee - I guess you are not smart enough to answer this question.
Or are you afraid to answer this question?
are you counting the cold war? Vietnam? Official or UnOfficial Wars?(Libya/Egypt/Syria/Darfur), wtf man, tell me what YOUR POINT is
Is it really that hard ?
who was the last American president who started NO wars ?
Gee - I guess you are not smart enough to answer this question.
Or are you afraid to answer this question?
Or you just can't handle the truth
it most certainly is not Obama
I did not ask you who it wasn't
it wasn't elmer fudd or buggs bunny either
Is it really that hard ? who was the last American president who started NO wars ?
Gee - I guess you are not smart enough to answer this question. Or are you afraid to answer this question? Or you just can't handle the truth
Ahem, Carter. 77-81.
thank you!
Obama has taken long enough to grow balls over congress.
I'm told he listens to the wrong people. He has new advisers now. I know...not exactly reassuring.
well hopefully new people and new decisions work out for us because the direction we have been heading as a country isn't the right way to go
obama was gelded long ago.
[Removed]
Yes but more important he signed into law the right to hold you as a prisoner without charging you with anything indefinitely with no proof that you did anything. Therefore, you can have a lunatic in office who decides to detain a person who might have inside information about the government and it's crookedness and that person may want to reveal this information but they would be held.....without any crime being committed. Are you catching my drift?
How do you feel about Jill Stein with the Green Party?
Don't you listen to Norman Goldman? My understanding is that only applies to non-citizens.
Not at all. It applies to everyone on US soil.
Check out Rocky Anderson, a third party candidate. Tell me what you think if you can.
Setting The Record Straight: The Changed Language In The NDAA, December 15, 2011 By Ray Medeiros
Several of the nations' top legal scholars, and their education institutions do not agree with you or Ray, signing statement or not. If the language was changed, then why the signing statement (which carrys no power of law) which affirms otherwise?
Because he knew there would be dorks like you trying to accuse him of some grand conspiracy. He made an extra effort to reassure people that the law does not apply to US citizens.
And you ignore all the proof that Obama specifically demanded it apply to Americans on our soil.
Yeah, I won't insult dorks by promoting you to such a lofty perch.
Ya gotta learn to crawl first.
Obviously you havent read the entire bill nor have you sought other opinions from dorks like harvard and those dorks at the ACLU.
Dems count on remedial khunts like you.
Provide the actual text and I'll call the Norman Goldman show myself and demand answers!
Take action. See samples of how below.
183,361 signatures so far for Bernie Sanders petition as of 10:15am central time 01/15/2012
http://sanders.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100081904.557411.411&gen=1&mailing_linkid=34578
The petition to save abandoned houses has 15 signatures. We picked one up at around 9:50pm 01/13/2012. Were just rolling right along.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Savingpeople-savinghomes-payingdowntheNationaldeficit/
Here is a place where you can directly address change. Take part, it does not hurt and may very well heal/help. Forward the cause of reform and rebirth.
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Ag8nw/zL2Q/B18Bb
Sierra Club has some good things to take part in as well. Set-up and ready for you to take part in. http://sierraclub.org/
Here is a place where you can directly address change. Take part, it does not hurt and may very well heal/help. Forward the cause of reform and rebirth.
http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Ag8nw/zL2Q/B18Bb
I'm aware of that site. Thanks though.
Your welcome.
I am putting this stuff out there for those who stop by to read the post and the comments.
actually this is going to court...the approval for the new department specifically said the head would HAVE to be approved by the senate....he broke the law, that is not being president...it's criminal
Let me guess, you heard that on FOX News?
no....it's in the law:
"(2) APPOINTMENT.—Subject to paragraph (3), the Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."
Oh.....you didn't read it, I guess?
I imagine it says the same thing for many of the appointments. They can still be made in emergency or recess. Can't they?
Article 1:Section 5: Clause 4: 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...
Article 2: Section 2:Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
The Senate was never in official recess, and the House never gave consent for recess.......
So, the language of the law itself notwithstanding...it was an illegal appointment
The criteria to judge this by, as a voter....would you consent to give your opponent this same power, by accepting, agreeing, and advocating it.....you do....
The Constitution guarantees the president the right to make appointments during Senate recesses. Now, can you prove that the Senate was in session for any other reason than to block this Constitutional guarantee?
Oh, come on. Are you saying the President gets to break the law because he doesn't feel Congress is observing the spirit of the law per his definition ? Are you saying this identical trick wasn't used by the Democrats in any prior Congress ?
When Democrats back their man even when he has clearly done wrong, they become no better than the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and the other Republican mouthpieces. It's OK to say "Obama's my man, but I agree he probably shouldn't have done that." Heck, I'm not an Obama supporter, but I can quickly list off a number of things I like about the man and some of his actions.
Blind allegiance fuels partisan grid-lock and demotes citizens to mere robots.
I don't think he's done wrong. You see, I'm in favor of protecting consumers and keeping the banks honest.
So you are a supporter of "the end justifies the means," and we can all do what ever we want as long as our intent is good and we mean well ?
I think it's more subtle than that. I think Republicans are acting contrary to the best interest of this country. I see nothing wrong with protecting consumers and keeping banks honest. I think the president was being practical. When a rule is abused to the detriment of the country it probably needs to be changed. I think Obama did what he saw was his duty despite the possible consequences and I'm proud of him for that. And I will defend his decision against petty logic-choppers and political hypocrites any day. I imagine most American's feel the same.
Shouldn't the rule be changed before we proceed ?
This is a particularly sensitive area because we're seeing the Executive Branch try once again to expand its powers over the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch did the same thing years ago in regards the ability to go to war without Congressional approval by simply saying they're not "wars."
By your logic, we should all be willing to elect a dictator just as long as we like what he says. What, however, would we do after he dies ? Pass the office to his son ?
Please don't endorse the Executive trying to further undermine Congressional powers just because you agree with the policy. That's how we always lose our freedoms; people basically "sell" them for a one time deal on something they like.
I think the question is how much damage should we let people who are abusing the rules get away with? How much can we afford? This probably wasn't an easy decision for Obama. Given the same set of circumstances would you have done differently?
Yes. I would have done differently.
The Legislative Branch makes law, the Executive enforces law, and the Judicial Brank ajudicates law. It is inappropriate for the branch that's supposed to enforce law to willingly violate law for any reason. We've skewered Presidents for doing this in the past, and we shouldn't let it slide now just because we personally like the reasons.
Once we establish a precedent that expands Executive powers to appoint when Congress is in recess, that precedent will be used to do the same by all subsequent Presidents. Do you want a later Republican president to have this power ?
No matter how much damage is done to the country? What would you have done? Your a lost cause if you can't see that laws can be manipulated and changed to suite the purposes of the wicked. He didn't have House Republicans arrested; he made a recess appointment. His lawyers defend his actions, so let the courts and congress decide.
Now you're engaging in hyperbole. The nation isn't going to fall apart because it takes a month or two longer to approve someone to run a watchdog.
I agree, the courts will decide.
at any cost...of course...that is EXACTLY why we are a rule of law Republic and not a democracy....
people get funny idea's in their head, and with enough support they do horrible things, always for "the good of the people"
history is full of examples of this...
at any cost...again with the hyperbole. You must really be conflicted. I can see why. Republican actions are simply indefensible. You're right, this was a bold move by Obama, but it was action that was invited by the flagrant parliamentary abuses by the Republicans who are putting the interests of the one-percent ahead of the interests of their country. I doubt Washington would have tolerated that. I've already given you my point of view. Deal with it. I'm not the lonely hearts club.
it wasn't bold....it was illegal, despotic and dictatorial.....and violates the separation of powers critical to our liberty
Exactly! The Evil Dictator installed a well-meaning, educated and competent head to the Consumer Financial Protection Burea so that consumers would be protected and banks kept honest. What will this despotic monster do next? Heal the sick? Face it, you are on the wrong side.
apparently the senate didn't see it that way...and that is the purpose of separation of powers.....one branch cannot usurp the powers of another....
No, I'm on the side of human accomplishment....not relegating the "poor" to a lifetime menial existence by making them just comfortable enough in their poverty......in the war on poverty started by FDR and LBJ, poverty won...time for a new battle plan.....the one from the 80's, mid-late 90's, and early-mid 2000's worked pretty well...time to get back on that track....
You really think another layer of government bureaucracy is the answer? If so YOU, and those who think like you, are the biggest part of the problem
You're spitting on the middle class. You're calling them the comfortable poor. You're type is easy to read. You also pretend you have no faith in humans to excel on their own so you wish to use poverty like a lash. You are the very dictator and despot you warn others against!
untrue...I fully believe in human's ability to excel and improve their circumstances.....I've done it myself...as have my parents, and many friends who have lived in the conditions of poverty but rose beyond those conditions through their own efforts......
You would prefer to keep people comfortably poor than let them struggle and sacrifice a bit to create something better...and you call that compassion....I call it a zoo, and people to you are "pets" of the government....
that doesn't matter......the rules are the rules....whether they are "blocking" maneuvers or not, they are the rules
So you're in favor of blocking protections for consumers and letting the banks commit fraud?
sixty years ago the line would have been "so your in favor of the zionist money changers and bankers controlling us via banking"
and that message is in the undercurrent of OWS as well....
hahaha......captain hyperbole has entered the building
You just don't want to admit that THAT is what Republican's are doing. They've been playing politics at America's expense for far too long. They are the ones that have crossed the line, betraying their country in pursuit of power. That is why the people will take Obama's side in this. Deal with it.
too long? the democrats had total unstoppable control for 4 years.....and the voters sent Republicans to stop them......and will again in 2012
I support them blocking Obama....he doesn't know what the hell he is doing and is destroying the country....I don't want the republicans to work with him to do that...I want them to oppose him and the liberal collectivist democrats
Total unstoppable control...Guess I've just discovered Captain Hyperbole's secret identity...hahaha
there is no language that allows it in the law.....
"emergency" is a little hyperbolic....
Becoming attached to the Democratic Party or any of its candidates is the worst fate that could befall OWS
Again with the generalizing. So, let's say Elizabeth Warren becomes a Senator. By your logic I would have to abandon her. Right?
OWS is a tiny movement, but I would argue it is the most important thing happening right now. Because it is so tiny, the most important responsibility for OWS activists IMHO is to build the movement. Everything else must be not simply of secondary importance, but of tertiary importance or less.
Ultimately the way out of the crises we face is for OWS to become a truly majoritarian movement, not for any particular personality, including the best imaginable personalities to be elected to any particular public office.
I am not suggesting that anyone should or should not vote for any particular candidate at this particular time, only that such a choice at the individual level is essentially and existential, moral choice and not a real political choice.
The real political choices we have to make are about building our movement and in the short, intermediate and long range ultimately the Democratic Party will be the death of our movement and is co-optation by the Democratic Party is the greatest danger our movement faces. All the historical evidence suggests that is the case as the Democratic Party has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the days of the Populists.
I think, quite correctly, OWS characterizes itself as a nonpolitical movement, a social movement that does not take positions on electoral questions.
Personally I do believe that at some point OWS will have to enter the electoral arena but it is far too premature to consider that at this point. Once we have 10 or 20 million people occupying will be time enough to consider a next step.
Well, when your movement is "built" enough to include people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders let me know and I'll show up myself. And, historically speaking, what movement has ever outlasted the Democratic Party?
Bernie is quite a different figure politically than is Elizabeth Warren. Bernie is not a Democrat and has never run as a Democrat. He does caucus with the Democrats in the Senate (a position with which I disagree) but that is as close to the Democratic Party as he has ever come.
He initially ran as an independent socialist and when pressed will still acknowledge being a socialist though he doesn't exactly wear it on his sleeve like he used to. The more important point is that he is institutionally independent of the Democratic Party which is not the case with Elizabeth Warren.
From the point of view of people like Elizabeth Warren and Dennis Kucinich I can tell you with extreme precision exactly when the movement will be big enough to support them as a movement. The movement will be big enough to support them as a movement the moment that they decide that it is no longer practical for them to run as Democrats and it is time for them to join the independent party of the movement whatever it is called at that point and run under its banner rather than as Democrats which is nothing but one of the two factions of the one party of the 1%.
Anything short of that and the movement is in danger of being captured by the Democratic Party which again has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the days of the Populists.
I am not here suggesting that progressives endorse some inconsequential third party, though I'm not rejecting it either. My point is that the movement right now is so small and inconsequential that what it does electorally as a movement, whether it seeks to support a third party candidate or influence the Democratic Party is going to be politically inconsequential and the real danger is that it will end up being co-opted by the Democrats should it take such a course.
None of this constitutes advice as to what people should do as individuals. It's about what the movement should do as a movement. As individuals I personally believe that what choices we make in the voting booth are personal, moral and existential choices and not of any particular political significance.
What matters for movement people and the movement as a whole is not what individuals do in the voting booth, but what you do before and after your few minutes in the voting booth each year. Are you going to spend time and energy ringing door bells, staffing phone lines and otherwise supporting some Democratic candidate or are you going to spend your time building the movement? I advocate for the latter as I think the former is a death trap and therein lies the difference.
I appreciate your candor. I think that politicians will try to win the votes and good will of protesters and also those that share their outrage. That's a good place to stay.
I agree, HitGirl. At least it is something. I'll take anything at this point.
I know watcha mean, BW.
Would have been nice if Obama "stood his ground" before signing NDAA, or opposing restoration of Glass Steagall, etc. etc. (oh yeah, Obama was likely always a moderate, right of center, democrat, masquerading as a progressive).
Better than a Republican masquerading as someone who cares about Americans.
Why? I mean, if Obama is behaving like a republican, then how is he not pretending to care about Americans? Don't get me wrong, I'm inclined to like republicans less than democrats, but really, I'm fucking sick of democrats. There's no relationship between their rhetoric & their actions (and it's been like this for years, at least as far back as Clinton).
Absolutely not true. Look at who they appoint, what the agencies do. Are you talking about all Democrats? What about the progressive caucus? Sorry, but life does require that you be discerning enough that you admit there are grey areas and that people aren't perfect.
There's exceptions (although I wouldn't say "all" members of the progressive caucus are good).
Exceptions to what: the utterly cynical reality that is human corruption? Is that really your message?
Yes of course ... that's an excellent synopsis of what I said?
Consider carefully this forum post and my response.
That's bigoted,ignorant and just a full on LIE!!!
Don't hide the truth in phoney outrage.
Your understanding is, that it only applies to non-citizens?
That is quite the statement to start a fine debate with.
So the citizens are exempt? Can you point to the actual phrase or sentence in the document, where citizens will be exempt?
Thanking you in advance.
Please see ZenDogs post on the NDAA for clarification.
Take a 3 hits of acid first and then remove part of your brain! Then maybe you can relate to zendog and his obama salivating caulk holstering.
I have provided the text on another thread about this issue. American citizens are expressly excluded, as are legal residents.
It is in section 1031. It is on page 362, I believe, of the bill.
The Feinstein amendment, also included in the final bill, insured that no citizen can be held in such a manner that violates the Constitution or existing laws.
Thanks for those details, epa1nter.
I can't, but only because I'm too tired to research it. Goldman is usually correct. Still, I'll look into it.
Only One Senate Democrat Supports Obama’s Recess Claim
By Neil Munro and Matthew Boyle Published: 9:33 PM 01/06/2012 | Updated: 12:05 AM 01/07/2012 By Neil Munro and Matthew Boyle dailycaller.com
Only one Senate Democrat, out of 51 asked, told The Daily Caller that President Barack Obama was correct when he claimed the Senate was in recess Jan. 3. That’s the day Obama announced that he had exercised his executive authority to fill four top posts during a Senate recess.
Their GOP counterparts slammed Obama for claiming the power to decide when the Senate is in recess.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/only-one-senate-democrat-supports-obamas-recess-claim/
If that's the case, let's see them legally undue his appointments.
Impeachment is a word more and more folk in D.C. are passing around.
They're passing around a lot of idiotic shit in D.C. these days. That's why people think so highly of congress.
They don't think much better of Obama......... or the Senate
The Senate is part of the congress.
Blah blah blah two year term guys six year term guys .... sure they're the same guys
The point is, they all suck including potus
Blah blah blah everybody sucks, there's nothing we can do about it so let's all just give up and get high. Sorry, not my thing.
Yes it is
The Senate is part of the congress.
But the majority of people do distinguish between the Senate and Congress, as well as the persons holding the office. I'll break it down for you, one is democratic majority and the other is republican. One has two representatives per state and the other has a number based on a state's population.
It could, for all practical purposes, based on your ignoring these realities, be said the congress is part of the Senate.
So why hasn't Obama Executive Ordered down Citizen's United or prosecuted anyone? Why hasn't he removed SCOTUS judges that pull stunts that you Obamaites now claim require a Constitutional Amendment is required to rectify?
Because there are enough of you dorks that believe any left wing crap spewed out of DC.
BOOM! My biggest problem is convincing liberals that to be liberal doesn't mean you have to ride Obama. You can be liberal and understand that Obama is not the droid we were looking for in 2008.
Star Wars.
Impeachment is being suggested,(if you paid attention) because Oblama is stepping outside of his legal confines. Your Dictator in Chief is headed for a ride down shit creek without any paddles at all.
He is a failure as a POTUS,but as a Dick tator he is doing just fine.
If Republican obstructionism hadn't been so flagrant and irresponsible, Obama might have something to worry about, but, as it is, he could probably arrest the House Republicans and people would cheer.
Republicans were elected in 2010 specifically TO obstruct this administration......they are doing what we sent them to do...thanks
Teabaggers raised my taxes.
(R)epelicans lie and you believe them.
They just couldn't accept that Bush fucked it all up.
The Bush era did fuck everything up, and it sucks that a lot of republicans can't see that. And it's also sad to see that now a lot of the other side, the democrats, are refusing to see that our current president is essentially George W Obama.
Also, when I say this, I'm not referring to the topic of this post, but the overall Obama administration.
You have to ignore a lot of reality to make that statement.
I'll leave it at that.
So we have not been at war with more countries than we were under the Bush administration? What about all those drones strikes? So Obama did not commit unconstitutional acts of war against Libya like Bush did against Iraq? Obama did not violate the War Powers Resolution?
Those are the facts you're ignoring. Also Obama works with Wall Street. Just look at his administration and his new campaign guy the Wall Street lobbyist.
Bush stirred up a lot on hornets.
I don't like it, but they need to be swatted.
Libya was a NATO mission.
NATO is made up of our allies.
Even France was in on it.
Talk about a strawman.
The (R)epilican stonewalling has set records. Because of this we still labor under many of the policies of the Bush administration.
They have all worked with WallStreet since the days of Reagan.
Want that to stop?
Get the money out!!
Ban corporate personhood!!!!
The USA is in NATO.
We agree on getting money out of politics. But you Won't get me to agree Obama is a good president just because republicans suck a lot. How many more years of war? At least another 4 with Obama! Next Stop Iran or Yemen or Pakistan or some place in Africa! Most likely after the election of course. Obama is an indefinite war president just like Bush. Look at Afghanistan. How many more years in Afghanistan? At least another 4!
You won't for a moment convince me that Obama is worse than Bush.
Stopping the runaway freight train of the military industrial complex, will be no simple task.
There's NO chance at all as long as the (R)epilicans continue stonewalling.
The saber rattling in the Middle East has been going on for far too long, I agree. But it certainly wasn't started by Obama.
Do you really think it would have been any better if the " bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" guy had been elected?
It would have been much worse.
I'm not trying to convince anyone about anything in relation to republicans. I'm just saying Obama is a horrible president. This entire conversation has nothing to do with Bush. And yes Bush was a terrible president. Easily among the worst in history.
wait until after the 2012 election. If Obama wins he will be the BOMB BOMB IRAN GUY. Just like he's been the bomb more countries than Bush guy.
"More indefinite war" - Obama 2012
Politicians are bought. If the system wasn't corrupt, Dennis Kucinich would have been president in 2008. But he was ignored by the mainstream media that was too busy flaunting Palin and Obama. Kucinich is the guy that's been fighting for the people and opposes ALL of the bullshit and calls out all the frauds, both democrat and republican.
"Is this the US congress or the board of directors meeting for Goldman Sachs??" - Dennis Kucinich
Using your logic, Iraq was a coalition of UN nations. Stonewalling is part of the deal, dummy. It's okay when your party does it.
That's just plain twisted.
Mr. Bush had to call in the PR firms to come up with "coalition of the willing".
He promised "contractor" deals to at least some of them.
NATO was opposed, as was the UN.
NATO, was and still is, on the ground in Afganistan.
(R)epelicans have set records for their level stonewalling!!!!!!!!
RECORDS!
In a time of severe, economic distress!!!
That was caused on their watch!!!!!!!
Throw the bums out!!!!!!!!
And that's why you'll lose.
we'll lose because we won?...hardly
Then why do there continue to be NO ARRESTS?
Over 250 of Regans gang was prosecuted.
Filibustering is irresponsible? Not when your party does it.
IN YOUR DREAMS! Talk is cheap, headlesscross.
Can you smoke it?
He should be impeached for not following the rules. If a conservative did this you would agree.
Much would depend on circumstances.
You are being completely dishonest. That is fact because the ends justify the means to any honest liberal. Getting what you want is more important than the rule of law.
And I'm sure you know all about blacks and Mexicans too. So what's it like living in that trailer park?
It's fine. You have a problem with people living in trailer parks take another Hit off your bong Girl?
[Deleted]
Just what I thought you fat slut.
Actually I'm 19 and thin as a rail. I love thai food and exercise daily. Does calling me a slut make you feel better about your empty life? I'd be more offended if I didn't already know what a creep you are.
Your the one bragging about putting out for libs bong head.
That's your imagination working overtime. I could have one liberal boyfriend and say I only put-out for liberals.
Yeah that's one thing BHO does well,...........piss on the Constitution any chance he gets.
Please cite an example where our president has "pissed on the constitution"?
Also FYI: "President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments".
Were you calling for the impeachment of the "dictator" then? Inform yourself.
Recess appointments are fine, when the congress is in recess.
Umm, many called for Bush to be impeached and prosecuted. Didn't Obama promise he would prosecute Bush?
So far since inaug, how many dc suits, banksters, wall streeters, etc etc have been prosecuted? None?
I don't recall any such promise. Maybe you can link me to the video...
You don't recall any such promise because he never made any such promise. You ought not continue conversations with people that can't substantiate their claims, it ends up with morons mentioning things like "orifices".
You were right.
I know.
All you gotta do it seek.......... it's out there. It was a campaign promise like many others he did completely the opposite of what he promised. On or by day 100 in office, he announced he would not prosecute Bush.
Of course, all of you Obama jaque supporters have selective recall.
it's out there...yeah, I accept that kind of evidence all the time.
I don't care what you accept, I was awake and sober during the campaign and have remained so since. His promises and then his renigging are well documented, ALL OVER THE NET, youtube even.
You might consider trying both as I'm far too wise to argue with irrational zealots who must remain blissfully ignorant and in denial to justify their positions.
Just so long as you got the whole Senate and congress thing all figured out now I'll be content that you learned and grew as a person during our little exchange of ideas :)
The senate and congress are different offices and clearly you have too many orifices in your head as anything useful leaked out...was any of it green?
I hear you have a class III AK47 9mm shotgun
She doesn't have anything more lethal than mersa and toxic shock syndrome maxi pads. I'm the hard core thug around these parts.
She doesn't have anything more lethal than mersa and toxic shock syndrome maxi pads. I'm the hard core thug around these parts.
the right to a timely public trial has been differed be some military law
Not at all. He was defending his Constitutional powers against the flagrant attempt by Republicans to manipulate the Senate rules for the soul purpose of undoing those powers granted by the Constitution.
Well put.
[Removed]
Ha ha ha! Another girlriday obama gobbling persona/clone!
He broke the law.
Not at all. He was defending his Constitutional powers against the flagrant attempt by Republicans to manipulate the Senate rules for the soul purpose of undoing those powers granted by the Constitution. If he broke the law, let the Supreme Court say so.
If there isn't a recess he can't make "recess " appiontments.The senate cannot recess without the approval of the house, the house cannot recess without the approval of the senate. The house was in session and did not give the approval for the senate to recess. he broke the law.
You have it half-right: neither chamber of Congress can recess for more than three days without the other chamber's consent. Since the House didn't give that consent, it forced the Senate to hold the pro forma sessions. A recess of three days or less is still, in all technicality, a recess.
The question, then, is whether or not that short a recess is valid for making recess appointments. The tradition has been that it is not, but there is no explicit limit in the Constitution in terms of how long the Senate must be in recess for the president to make an appointment.
As I recall, he first consulted his lawyers, a trick he learned from Bush the Torture President.
They can't cite the Constitution on this becasue it goes against what the constitution says. It's their "interpretation". They're breaking the law and they know it.
Americans aren't going to put up with the obstructionism any longer and Obama knows it. The House Republicans are playing with fire: not Obama's fault if they get burned.
the obstructionism is on the part of the dems.
That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
Don't you just love the Orwellian nature of it?
That begs the question: what is shooz doing here?
Typing in support of OWS.
In support of clarification.
Well, you're also making me laugh...so thanks :)
harry reid said that if a republican is elected president he will refuse to work with him.
A tough guy like Harry Reid really puts the fear of God into Republicans...hahahaha!
harry reid a tough guy? He's a dithering idiot. People are not afraid of him, they pity him.
That's why your remark is so ridiculous.
not as ridiculous as you are.