Obama’s non-recess appointments herald more bickering post-2012
There exists a hope that this November’s elections, with such a stark divide between Democrats and Republicans on many issues, will provide some political clarity for at least a couple of years. There’s a chance that comes to pass. Yesterday’s actions by President Obama, however, suggest the more likely outcome is an even nastier, dysfunctional Washington.
I’m talking about Obama’s appointment Wednesday of four officials: three to the National Labor Relations Board, and one as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. He styled these as “recess appointments.” Which wouldn’t be problematic if Congress were in fact in recess. But it’s not: The House and Senate are conducting pro forma sessions expressly to avoid going into recess.
Democrats will point out that Republicans in the House forced this situation to prevent recess appointments, which are constitutional, and which President George W. Bush and others made at times to skirt Senate opposition to their choices. Republicans will point out that Democrats in the Senate — including then-Sen. Obama — employed the exact same tool for the exact same reason toward the end of the Bush years, and that Bush did not “go nuclear” by ignoring the pro forma sessions. A similar point could be made about the use of the filibuster.
I would say that, sooner or later, one party or the other was going to have to decide to unilaterally disarm when it comes to these disputes. Except that neither party has exhibited the kind of good faith that would indicate it would respond in kind to such a disarmament.
Until and unless that changes, I can only imagine these situations will continue to escalate until one side gets the judicial branch involved to decide on constitutional grounds. And I fear that, even then, the result will not be a resolution respected by all parties, but rather to make that branch even more politicized.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
251 comments Add your comment
John
January 5th, 2012
12:12 pm
Republicans are trying to unconstitutionally make or change laws. The Consumer Financial Watchdog Agency and the National Labor Relations Board and their work has been created by law as specified in the Constitution…passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. It it the government’s responsibility to make sure these laws are being followed. By their own admission, the Republicans are trying to get rid of the laws which created these agencies by ignoring their responsibility to vote on the nominees. They have no problem with Mr. Cordray personally or politically…they have a problem with the agency itself and the law that created the agency. Without these positions being filled, the agencies cannot do their jobs which makes the law useless. If Republicans don’t like the laws, they can change it through the Constitutionally based process not through some childish unconstitutional game.
“Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power,” said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConell (R-KY). Mitch McConell, do your job instead of playing games and then whine when you’re being beaten at those games you want to play.
Jefferson
January 5th, 2012
12:15 pm
If you don’t like it, try to elect another president. Otherwise, crying like a child because the other team is doing what you would do if you were in power, is indeed child like. It would be different if it were the 1st time, it ain’t.
Jimmy62
January 5th, 2012
12:16 pm
John: And Obama is specifically doing exactly what he said should not ever be done when the shoe was on the other foot. What this really illustrates is that nothing Obama ever says should be taken at face value or even as the truth. He can do the most evil and illegal thing in the world, then say the Republicans made him do it, and people like you will congratulate him for it. Y’all don’t actually care about the rule of law, just winning.
Jimmy62
January 5th, 2012
12:17 pm
Jefferson: You seem to forget that the GOP did have the chance to do this very thing, but they didn’t do it. Because it’s against the law. Sorry, but lawbreakers should be prosecuted, not cheered.
Don't Tread
January 5th, 2012
12:18 pm
Comrade Obama in 2008: “You lost”.
I suppose that’s all the justification he needs to run things “his way”. After all, he won’t take no for an answer. Sieg Heil!
John
January 5th, 2012
12:27 pm
Jimmy62, what happened to Republicans demand for votes for all nominees? That’s what they demanded when they were in the majority during the Bush presidency. So, like your Obama claim, Republicans are doing exactly what they said should not be done when the shoe is on the other foot. What this really illustrates is that nothing Republicans ever says should be taken at face value or even as the truth. They can do the most evil and illegal thing in the world, then say Obama and the Democrats made them do it, and people like you will congratulate Them for it. Y’all don’t actually care about the rule of law, just winning.
This is not about a judge’s nomination…this is about creating or changing laws in an unconstitutional manner. And aren’t the Republicans the party who claim to be the Constitutionalists? Where are these tactics spelled out in the Constitution.
ragnar danneskjold
January 5th, 2012
12:31 pm
Counf me as one who believes every nominee deserves a vote. Presidents ought to be given the teams they desire. If a nominee is objectionable, the block should be on a majority vote, not due to failure of the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional duties.
While Mr. Corday is supremely incompetent for the position – what is it about plaintiff-attorneys that leaves the leftists swooning? – and the position itself is anathema, it does not logically follow that the Obama administration does not deserve the full consequences of its bad judgment. Dodd-Frank is a significant element of the anemic “recovery.”
ragnar danneskjold
January 5th, 2012
12:32 pm
Query, would it be a criminal act for an individual to take government monies without a legal appointment, emphasis on “legal?”
ragnar danneskjold
January 5th, 2012
12:33 pm
Would a former prosecutor be held to a higher standard in any evaluation/question of a personal, arguably criminal act?
@@
January 5th, 2012
12:41 pm
Yesterday’s actions by President Obama, however, suggest the more likely outcome is an even nastier, dysfunctional Washington.
Maybe he’s wants to leave the earth scorched before his exit in 2013.
Promises, promises, such a “nice” fella, he of little change.
schnirt
John
January 5th, 2012
12:42 pm
This has NOTHING to do with the nomination process or recess appointments…it has to do with trying to use games and gimmicks in trying to unconstitutionally create laws. My Cordray has bipartisan support among attorney generals. Not a single Republican senator has said anything negative about Mr. Cordray’s qualification, personal or political beliefs. They have; however, said anyone who is nominated would be blocked because they do not like the law and want to do away with it.Republican’s need to go back and read the Constitution to learn how laws are made.
John
January 5th, 2012
12:48 pm
“Yesterday’s actions by President Obama, however, suggest the more likely outcome is an even nastier, dysfunctional Washington.”
Really? I think that happened when Mitch McConnell said “the single most important thing is for Obama to be a one-term president”. Don’t think you can get nastier and more dysfunctional then that.
BT
January 5th, 2012
12:49 pm
Congrats to Don’t Tread for working in a communism reference AND a Nazi reference. All of his posts in the future should be taken very seriously.
ragnar danneskjold
January 5th, 2012
12:51 pm
Dear John @ 12:42, why do leftists have such affection for unelected bureaucrats who hold absolute power. As written Congress has no power to reduce the agency’s budget, nor to otherwise constrain its activities. Is that not stupidity on steroids, or is that just what you would call muscular leftism?
@@
January 5th, 2012
1:05 pm
Is the CFPB the same as the FTC or under the FTC? It’s looks like duplication to me. Besides, every state and even some local governments have their own consumer protection agencies.
The bigger government gets, the more difficult it is to watch…keep an eye on. I’ve always wondered if that’s their intent.
John
January 5th, 2012
1:05 pm
ragnar danneskjold @ 12:51 pm. “why do leftists have such affection for unelected bureaucrats who hold absolute power. ”
Before making such statements, please do some research. Are you trying to say every government department headed by an unelected bureaucrat was created by leftists? Who created the Department of Homeland Security? I don’t recall having the chance to vote on the person I would like to head that agency.
As far as the law, if Republicans don’t like it, they can change it and create new laws…that remedy is in the Constitution. These games they are trying to play is not in the Constitution.
Jefferson
January 5th, 2012
1:15 pm
Jimmy, wrong.
resno2
January 5th, 2012
1:18 pm
“the single most important thing is for Obama to be a one-term president”. Duh! The majority of working Americans feel that way… so what if Mitch McConnell actually said it?
Voice of Reason
January 5th, 2012
1:19 pm
Does Richard Cordray and the position he was appointed to remind anyone else of Wesley Mouch and the Senior Coordinator of the Bureau of Economic Planning and Natural Resources? Is he going to start issuing Directives?
JDW
January 5th, 2012
1:21 pm
I do have to agree with ragnar for a change…Presidents, all Presidents, deserve fast votes on their appointees. Not approvals mind you, but votes, if you don’t like the appointees or the votes elect someone else to the office.
As to Corday, even the Republicans say he is qualified and that makes this particular filibuster supremely distasteful. In fact he is already a compromise candidate as Elizabeth Warren, the first choice was withdrawn. The NLRB business was just a flat naked attempt by the Republicans to shut down the board.
I agree with Kyle that ultimately the voters will have to put a stop to this business, but in the meantime I am happy to see Obama respond in kind. If you break down his numbers you find that while he does indeed have approvals hovering in the high forty’s in the past he loses some 13 to 15 points to people that think he has not done enough to stand up to the Republicans.
If he gets those folks back he jumps immediately to the low sixties…
JDW
January 5th, 2012
1:23 pm
@ragnar…”As written Congress has no power to reduce the agency’s budget, nor to otherwise constrain its activities. Is that not stupidity on steroids, or is that just what you would call muscular leftism?”
First that is not the case, second the recourse is to change the law not play parliamentary games.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
1:33 pm
BT
January 5th, 2012
12:49 pm
Congrats to Don’t Tread for working in a communism reference AND a Nazi reference. All of his posts in the future should be taken very seriously.
lol
I love Godwin’s Law
BT
January 5th, 2012
1:33 pm
Resno, congress’s first responsibility isn’t to make sure their buddies in their party get reelected. It’s to govern the country. The fact that both sides fail to realize this is a major reason why we find ourselves in the situation we are in. The fact that McConnell is comfortable enough to actually publicly announce this, is terrifying. The fact that it doesn’t make your blood boil is beyond sad. The fact that in your mind the majority of Americans may or may not agree is entirely beside the point.
@@
January 5th, 2012
1:36 pm
Whooaaa! I have an opportunity to help a left-winger at jay’s.
Oh well, I’m banned so he’s on his own.
Ronnie Thornton (W&D) has terminal cancer, not to mention a humongous mansion not too far from where I live. It’s so huge, it’s gaudy.
Cutty
January 5th, 2012
1:37 pm
Reagan made 240 recess appointments. Clinton 140. W. 171. Obama 29. Get a grip. He’s not abusing the process as past presidents have. Congress passed a law creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I think the better question is why are republicans blocking the vote on the nomination. That is dysfunctional.
Get Real
January 5th, 2012
1:44 pm
Hail King Obama NOT
td
January 5th, 2012
1:47 pm
John
January 5th, 2012
12:48 pm
Sort of like when the Dems said if the judge is conservative then that in and by itself is grounds not to get confirmed to the Federal court?
Linda
January 5th, 2012
1:49 pm
What the consumer really needs is protection from the federal government.
Obama keeps saying that everyone should follow the same rules & thinks there’s not enough billions of them.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
1:52 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
1:47 pm
John
January 5th, 2012
12:48 pm
Sort of like when the Dems said if the judge is conservative then that in and by itself is grounds not to get confirmed to the Federal court?
When
clyde
January 5th, 2012
2:05 pm
The boys and girls of congress are playing games.They’re not quite closed and they’re not quite open.Obama did an end run and now we will hear the argument for the next few weeks.That’s along with the primary process that’s already run too long.This would all be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
2:08 pm
Can anyone on this blog tell me how Obama is going to win Georgia?
John
January 5th, 2012
2:17 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
1:47 pm
As I pointed out before, this has nothing to do with a nominee’s qualification or personal or political beliefs. Both parties have been known to do that…this goes way beyond that. U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 7 states how a bill becomes a law. These agencies were created by law which was passed as stated in Article 1 Section 7. Congress has a duty to uphold that law. Instead, Republicans are trying to unconstitutionally change the law via parliamentary procedures. Republicans have every right to change the law if they so choose but by the process as stated in the Constitution. This is not what they are doing. 45 Republicans signed a letter vowing to block ANY nominee to head the bureau until its leadership and funding structures are changed. It’s just more Republican “it’s my way or no way” games.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
2:20 pm
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
2:08 pm
Can anyone on this blog tell me how Obama is going to win Georgia?
Stop posting this over and over in each blog especially when it’s irrelevant to the topic
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
2:23 pm
Darvocet….it is very relevant…..Simply because you cannot answer the question does not make it “irrelevant”.
SO, how is he going to win Georgia?
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
2:26 pm
Just stop.
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
2:28 pm
Darvocet….is that all you have “just stop”? HA, are you 3 years old?
John
January 5th, 2012
2:31 pm
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
2:23 pm
Actually UGA 1999, it is irrelevant. 270 electoral votes is what a candidate needs to become president. Georgia has 16 electoral votes so Obama can loose GA, just as he did in 2000 and still be elected President. The key is to go after the swing states and not worry as much about the states that are consistently either blue or red.
saywhat?
January 5th, 2012
2:31 pm
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
2:08 pm
“Can anyone on this blog tell me how Obama is going to win Georgia?”
Perhaps he may win when enough people keep reading such repeated idiotic posts and decide they no longer want to affiliate with the political party of the poster? Just a thought.
Now your turn. Can you tell me how Romney is going to win New York and California?
saywhat?
January 5th, 2012
2:32 pm
UGA1999- “Just stop” is not what 3 year olds say, it is what you say to 3 year olds.
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
2:35 pm
Saywhat? Actually yes, I am not so sure Obama will win either California or New York. I have family in both states. California’s economy has worsened since Obama has taken office. Also his weakened stance on immigration is crippling California.
New York will be much more difficult for Romney, however I do think he will pick up the moderate voter from both sides.
What about Ohio, South Carolina and Florida? Currently Obama is losing in all three “swing states” and this is to a generic Repub candidate or Romney.
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
2:38 pm
So for all of the liberals in Georgia, why do you insist on coming on this blog on posting your worthless thoughts. He is not going to win Georgia so your vote does not matter. Keep up the good work!
John
January 5th, 2012
2:54 pm
Enter your comments here
gt_me
January 5th, 2012
2:55 pm
UGA 1999@2:38 – So by your logic if the President can get to 270 w/o GA then your vote does not count and you should just stay home next November.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
3:00 pm
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
2:35 pm
Saywhat? Actually yes, I am not so sure Obama will win either California or New York. I have family in both states. California’s economy has worsened since Obama has taken office.
Somehow you’re tying a failure of leadership in California to the President. Isn’t the economic situation more a result of their recent governors? And the anecdotal evidence of “you have family there” is supposed to be indicative of larger trends? Why are you wasting your time on the AJC when it’s clear that you’re ready to be a talking head on Fox News/
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
3:01 pm
gt_me – Next November is the actual election that we are discussing. Your point makes no sense. Are you referring to 2016?
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
3:04 pm
Okay, you’ve had your moment in the sun UGA 1999/TD, please get back on topic.
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
3:06 pm
Darvocet…and you have yet to answer my question or make a valid point.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
3:08 pm
Please stop derailing the thread. Just close your browser window.
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
3:15 pm
Darvocet….all you have to do is answer the question. Too hard for ya?
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
3:16 pm
Ask a question about recess appointments. Is that too hard for you?
John
January 5th, 2012
3:20 pm
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
3:06 pm
You have no point..it’s all irrelevant. All you are doing is showing everyone how unintelligent you are. Learn something about the electoral college and how it functions. Do some research…in 2008, Obama lost the state of GA (and it’s 16 electoral votes) yet he won the presidency. Just as he did in 2008, he can loose GA and still win the election…making GA irrelevant.
Your question has been answered…just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it has not been answered. Are you seriously that unintelligent?
John
January 5th, 2012
3:21 pm
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
3:06 pm
You have no point..it’s all irrelevant. All you are doing is showing everyone how unintelligent you are. Learn something about the electoral college and how it functions. Do some research…in 2008, Obama lost the state of GA (and it’s 16 electoral votes) yet he won the presidency. Just as he did in 2008, he can loose GA and still win the election…making GA irrelevant.
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
3:26 pm
Darvocet….Is that all you think about is recess? Wow you are in 3rd grade!
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
3:28 pm
John…..NO KIDDING!!! However all of you liberals can come on here and spew your ignorance and know that the State of Georgia is RED! It doesnt matter what you say here on this blog!
Get it now? WOW!
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
3:28 pm
Chances of Obama winning the general election – 49%
Chances of Obama winning Georgia – 0%
Get it now?
St Simons - we're on Island time
January 5th, 2012
3:31 pm
huh? – two words – John Bolton
JV
January 5th, 2012
3:37 pm
Article II, Section 2 of Constitution:
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.
Just remember… what goes around comes around.
John
January 5th, 2012
3:39 pm
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
3:28 pm
And I take it you think Republicans should keep their mouths shut in all the blue stats?
Kyle Wingfield
January 5th, 2012
3:40 pm
JV @ 3:37: The problem is that the Senate is not in recess.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
3:40 pm
Oh it is going to be fun when it is our turn.
td
January 5th, 2012
3:44 pm
UGA 1999
January 5th, 2012
3:28 pm
You better watch out these libs do not like it when you speak the truth about their vote in Georgia for Obama is not going to be counted. Even if Obama wins, history will show my vote was counted as 16 votes going to the Republican nominee from Georgia but ZERO votes will be cast for Obama from Georgia.
I swear I am going to actually think of all these libs on these blogs votes not being counted and laugh out loud in the voting booth when I cast my vote for the Republican.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
3:44 pm
Kyle Wingfield
January 5th, 2012
3:40 pm
Exactly. But hey, it will be our turn soon. Like it was said, what goes around comes back around.
td
January 5th, 2012
3:47 pm
Kyle Wingfield,
Can you please tell Darvocet spending/Billy Mays Here/ alt name/altname/altname that uga 1999 and myself are two different bloggers. The silly little boy thinks everyone uses multiple names on these blogs. Maybe the little gnat will go away if he is proven wrong enough.
joe
January 5th, 2012
3:48 pm
Yet another example of Obama’s dictatorial rule. It is stuff like this that firms any doubt that he must be voted out come November. God help us if he gets another 4 years…we’ll be Greece for sure.
Junior Samples
January 5th, 2012
3:48 pm
UGA 1999
Because we live in a state that’s republican by majority, we have no rights, no voice, no opinions, right? It’s clear that’s what you’re trying to say.
I suppose that’s your version of democracy, but we’ll have no part of it.
This isn’t your blog, your website, your newspaper, or your state.
You cannot tell us what to do.
This is a prime example of freedom of expression.
Get over yourself. We can agree to disagree, but your attempts to silence anyone here are contradictory to laws you so adore.
Chew on that.
Stop being a troll and make your mother proud for once.
td
January 5th, 2012
3:52 pm
Junior Samples
January 5th, 2012
3:48 pm
The only thing wrong with your point (that has been pointed out to me several times by liberal bloggers on liberal blogs) is that this is not the public but instead a privately held forums the host can band any blogger anytime they choose. Now I am pretty sure as long as people abide by the rules Kyle will not ban anyone but it is within his rights on a private blog.
John
January 5th, 2012
3:55 pm
Kyle Wingfield
January 5th, 2012
3:40 pm
By whose definition? If the Senate is not in recess, what are they working on? If they are in session, are all our senators in Washington D.C. right now doing the work we’re paying them to do? Playing these games could mean the Senate is never in recess. That could also mean, recess appointments could be prevented from expiring since there would never be a next session if both parties play these games.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
3:56 pm
The controversy is not about the number of recess appointments or by whom. During the last two years of the Bush presidency, Reid kept the Senate in pro forma sessions to prevent recess appointments. Bush HONORED the rule & showed RESPECT for congress. Yesterday was the first time in history that any president has made recess appointments when congress was in a pro forma session.
During the White House briefing yesterday, a reporter asked Carney about the monarchy. Carney said, “We can’t wait for congress to act.” The president has finally succeeded in making congress irrelevant. Give him a robe & a crown.
saywhat?
January 5th, 2012
3:58 pm
Of course by td-UGA reasoning, THEIR votes and Georgia’s 16 electoral votes counted for nothing in 2008, much as they will in 2012. Think about THAT while you giggle in the voting booth. Me, I will just keep laughing at the sad sack republican whiners for 5 more years,just as a I have the last three, in or out of the voting booth.
As for the topic on hand, yes Obama’s recent recess appointments were unprecedented in that they didn’t reflect the traditional arbitrary Senate 3-day rule. However, the Republicans abuse of that rule is also unprecedented. The abuse came not in the pro-forma sessions themselves, which do have precedent, but the reasoning behind them, i.e. prevention of the function of government. THAT was the initial escalation, but I am sure the Republicans will whine and complain if a future Democratic house of Representatives attempts to nullify a law by the same actions. The Republicans have also been unprecedented in their abuse of the filibuster, requiring a supermajority in the Senate to pass even what is considered routine legislation. I have no pity for the grand obstructionist party. They reap what they sow.
jconservative
January 5th, 2012
3:59 pm
The history of “recess appointments” is pretty complete. George Washington made the first and about every president since has taken advantage of Article II, Section 2.
Teddy Roosevelt holds the record with an appointment while the Senate was in a one-half day recess.
The last Federal Court case on the issue was over a recess appointment by George W Bush that Ted Kennedy sued over in Federal District Court. Kennedy lost.
This is about politics, pure and simple politics.
And I disagree with Kyle, this will in no way contribute to the worsening of political strife in Washington. Anyone paying attention knew this was going to happen.
But if this is really, truly, important to McConnell he can sue in Federal Court. As a Senator he has standing in any case over the matter.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
4:03 pm
Even Obama Agrees that the Senate Was Not in Recess
Nothing even suggests that the President gets to overrule Congress on this point. To the contrary, the Constitution prevents either chamber from adjourning for more than three days “without the consent of the other” and, while it requires that all bills and resolutions be presented to the President for signature or veto, carves out a sole exception for votes “on a question of adjournment.”
It is little surprise that an Administration which finds the Constitution flexible enough to support an individual mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance would also argue that its seemingly clear text is sufficiently pliable to empower the President to overrule Congress’s decision that it’s actually in session.
But to make that argument less than two weeks after embracing the very opposite position, that takes chutzpah!
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/05/even-obama-agrees-that-the-senate-was-not-in-recess/
Junior Samples
January 5th, 2012
4:03 pm
td,
I’m not trying to silence or ban anyone. Just pointing out his “if you don’t like it in Georgia since we’re republican-get out” mentality.
If everyone either “pro” or “con” it’s a boring and one-sided debate.
Isn’t that what a forum is supposed to be?
BT
January 5th, 2012
4:04 pm
Good point Joe. Because Obama has done something that pretty much every President before him has done, but there might be a small technicality in the way he’s done it, it’s a clear indication that he is dictatorial and we are headed the way of Greece. Nice catch. I’m sure your new found love of sticking to the letter of parliamentary procedure (appointing John Bolton is okey dokey, but this is treason!) is strictly borne out of a love for rules, and is in no way influenced by the fact that you would hate any President with a (D) after his name, right?
John
January 5th, 2012
4:05 pm
joe
January 5th, 2012
3:48 pm
I like how you throw the words dictatorial rule around. Not a single person has responded to the fact that Republicans are trying to ignore the Constitution and create or block laws using parliamentary games. They are trying to shut down the government (or parts of it) by now following the Constitution and laws they swore to uphold when they took their oath. If Republicans want to change the law, the Constitution tells they how to do it, yet they are ignoring it.
Can anyone point out in the Constitution where it gives Republican congressional members the right to do what they are doing? Remember, Republican insist all powers are specified in the Constitution and it’s not there, congress doesn’t have the power.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
4:10 pm
First of all John clear something up… are you saying the constitution authorized the creation of a labor relations broad or consumer protection agency? If so please point out where that is found in the “written version” not the so-called liberals living version?
carlosgvv
January 5th, 2012
4:11 pm
The Republican Party is in the iron grip of Big Business money. So, you may forget the idea of them ever showing any “good faith” either to the Democrats or to the American people. Instead, look for them to continue faithfully executing the orders of their corporate masters.
John
January 5th, 2012
4:14 pm
Linda
January 5th, 2012
3:56 pm
“The controversy is not about the number of recess appointments or by whom. During the last two years of the Bush presidency, Reid kept the Senate in pro forma sessions to prevent recess appointments. Bush HONORED the rule & showed RESPECT for congress. ”
So Bush was too weak to challenge Congress on it and President Obama isn’t. Right now Republicans are trying to use Senate rules, which are not laws, to challenge the President and he’s fighting back. As I’ve stated before, this is not about the appointment process…this is about Republicans trying to use Senate rules to create (or change) laws by passing the Constitution. 45 Republican Senators have signed onto a letter stating they will oppose ANY and ALL nominations because they don’t like the law. They have sworn to uphold the laws (all laws) and if they don’t like it, the Constitution gives them they remedy to change it. Outside of that, I see it as abuse of power.
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
4:15 pm
“According to a 1993 brief from the Clinton Justice Department, Congress must remain adjourned for at least three days before the adjournment constitutes a “recess” for the purposes the recess appointment power.
The origin of this three day period is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.”
In other words, the president can only recess appoint when the Senate has adjourned for more than three days, and the Senate cannot adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the House.
There is recent precedent for this action and for its legitimacy.In fact, then-Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote to the Supreme Court on April 26, 2010:“Although a President may fill such vacancies through the use of his recess appointment power … the Senate may act to foreclose this option by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time over a lengthy period. For example, the Senate did not recess intrasession for more than three days at a time for over a year beginning in late 2007.””
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
4:17 pm
@Jimmy62 January 5th, 2012 12:16 pm – He can do the most evil and illegal thing in the world, then say the Republicans made him do it, and people like you will congratulate him for it. Y’all don’t actually care about the rule of law, just winning.
****************************************************
Jimmy Boy if you think Obama can do the most evil and illegal thing in the world, IF SANTORUM was YOUR president YOU WOULD SEE WHAT evil LOOKS LIKE.
Santorum said that he BELIEVES IN WEALTH INEQUALITY. In other words if you are NOT RICH he does not gave a rats arse about YOU.
Santorum makes Obama look like a SAINT!
Linda
January 5th, 2012
4:21 pm
The reasoning of the Republicans was not the prevention of the functioning of government, but rather the prevention of more government overreach.
The entity that blew its top the furthest yesterday was the US Chamber of Commerce. Their concern is business, i.e. the ECONOMY, stupid. They have noticed that both the number of widgets we are producing & the number of employees that are assembling them are each fewer than the number of employees in the Compliance Departments. Checked the price of widgets lately?
We need jobs more than we need financial protection. We need protection from the federal government more than we need protection from lenders.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
4:22 pm
@Jimmy62 January 5th, 2012 12:17 pm – You seem to forget that the GOP did have the chance to do this very thing, but they didn’t do it. Because it’s against
*******************************************************
Before you get on these blogs, you need to get your facts right. Not spreading LIES TO MAKE YOUR POINT..
IT IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. LOOK IT UP.
Even Gingrich admitted it was not against the law.
John
January 5th, 2012
4:23 pm
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
4:10 pm
Here it is…it’s article 1 section 7 which defines how bills become laws. These departments were created by law via the Constitutional process. Got it?
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but
if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
4:24 pm
@@Jimmy62 January 5th, 2012 12:17 pm – You seem to forget that the GOP did have the chance to do this very thing, but they didn’t do it. Because it’s against
***********************************************************
P. S.
If it is against the law, George Bush did it 30 TIMES.
Clinton did it 17 Times.
Obama has only done it 9.
YOU PEOPLE ARE SO IGNORANT!
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
4:24 pm
Flip-flop again:
“As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama promised that if he was elected president he would not issue obscure declarations known as signing statements that thwart the intent of laws passed by Congress. But as the president now seeking reelection in 2012, on at least 20 occasions Obama has embraced the same tactic he criticized George W. Bush for using, raising allegations of double-dealing in Congress and questions of constitutionality from the American Bar Association.
Obama’s most recent signing statement came on New Year’s Eve, when he autographed a 13-paragraph memorandum declaring he did not intend to follow several sections of the National Defense Authorization Act that funded the military for 2012. The president said his lawyers had concluded the provisions interfered with his constitutional duties to carry out foreign policy.
The signing statement essentially declares Obama’s intention to ignore requirements in the law, including restrictions on data transfers to Russia, new authorities to detain suspected members of al Qaeda, and sanctions against the central bank of Iran. The move has alienated members of Congress who claim the White House reneged on promises it made during backroom negotiations to get the long-stalled legislation passed just before lawmakers left for the holidays.”
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
4:26 pm
I still waiting for constitutional references as requested, the commerce clause does not “specifically list” a labor relation broad or consumer protection agency. If these two laws that created these two entities are constitutional give me their constitutional bases please?
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
4:29 pm
@@@ January 5th, 2012 12:41 pm – Yesterday’s actions by President Obama, however, suggest the more likely outcome is an even nastier, dysfunctional Washington.
Maybe he’s wants to leave the earth scorched before his exit in 2013.
*******************************************************************
The only thing that will be SCORCHED is the REPUBLICAN PARTY when the american people GIVE THEM THE BOOT!
Mark my words.
Get Real
January 5th, 2012
4:29 pm
I just a vido from 2008 with then canidate Obama stating that in his White House he WILL NOT be by passing congress…whatever gets you elected…..
td
January 5th, 2012
4:32 pm
carlosgvv
January 5th, 2012
4:11 pm
The Republican Party is in the iron grip of Big Business money
The myths are flying today. Just go and google business donations in 2008 presidential election and you will find one article after another where Obama received a great deal more money then McCain. It is the Dems that are in the pockets of big business and you poor libs are buying into their argument that they are for the little man.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
4:32 pm
@John January 5th, 2012 12:42 pm – This has NOTHING to do with the nomination process or recess appointments…it has to do with trying to use games and gimmicks in trying to unconstitutionally create laws.
*******************************************
YOU ARE RIGHT JOHN BOY…..this has NOTHING TO DO WITH the nomination process.
What it does have to do with is that Obama OUTFOXED the Republicans. AGAIN
John
January 5th, 2012
4:32 pm
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
4:26 pm
Neither does it specifically list a Department of Homeland Security….guess that’s unconstitutional as well.Oh, wait…that was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President so I guess it doesn’t matter if it’s Constitutional or not.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
4:33 pm
John
January 5th, 2012
4:23 pm
The request was not what gives congress power to create a law, so your answer was not good enough John. Got it!?
I’m asking for what enumerated power is given to Congress to create a labor relation broad or consumer protection agency, that should be found in article one section eight if they are indeed constitutional as you claim.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
4:33 pm
John@4:14, I used the words HONOR & RESPECT when referring to Pres. Bush’s following the pro forma session rules. If you want to confuse those traits with being “too weak,” you go right ahead & bow to your new king.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
4:35 pm
John
January 5th, 2012
4:32 pm
Oh wait it was passed by the demands of the Democrats but it still doesn’t make it constitutional John, so stop saying things are constitutional when they are not, that is my point – GOT IT!
John
January 5th, 2012
4:38 pm
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
4:33 pm
Exactly, it’s you and Republicans that claim all powers of Congress are enumerated in the Constitution and Congress has no other powers outside of that. So, where does in state anything about the Department of Homeland Security?
td
January 5th, 2012
4:38 pm
John
January 5th, 2012
4:23 pm
Ok. Now go to the law that creates the agency or department and read it and see if there is a little pesky clause about the head of such agency has to be appointed by the President and APPROVED by the Senate. Until conformation then that person is not the head of the agency or department. Now the President could run down there and become hands on and run the agency his self and it would be Constitutional and legal.
Ross Perot
January 5th, 2012
4:39 pm
If Republicans don’t like the laws, they can change it through the Constitutionally based process not through some childish unconstitutional game.
They childish games have been played by the dems before too buddy. Your boy President Debt wants to grant himself Dictator power and you subjects follow along blindly. I can’t wait for this freedom taker to get flushed in the next election like the t#rd that he is.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
4:42 pm
td, it really isn’t constitutional, like so darn many other laws we have aren’t constitutional. We even have members of congress that will openly tell you that half of what they do is not constitutional and they laugh like hell when they say it. It really has become just too much of a pathetic joke.
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
4:42 pm
I’m sure that the Dems would have had their thongs in a wad too if Bush did the same thing when Reid held the Senate in “session” for almost a whole year for the expressed purpose of preventing Bush from making Recess appointments.
(BTW, Recess appointments aren’t permanent and aren’t even for the whole term of the president. This guy will have to eventually come up again for appointment at the end of the next “session” of Congress)
BT
January 5th, 2012
4:43 pm
You stay classy Ross!
John
January 5th, 2012
4:43 pm
Linda
January 5th, 2012
4:33 pm
Are Republicans showing any HONOR and RESPECT for the President or the law or even the Constitution? Republicans have said blocking the nomination of Mr. Cordray has nothing to do with his qualifications…as a matter of fact, he has bipartisan support among his peers of state’s attorneys generals. The Republicans said they will block any and all nominations because they do not like the law. They are trying to bypass the Constitution and create a new way to create or change laws.
Cosby
January 5th, 2012
4:49 pm
All a mater of semantics….First, congress was not in recess technically, and thereby making these appointments unconconstitutional, technically. But the technicalities are used by lawyers all the time to free criminals…..the cause for alarm is Obama is using these appointments to departments to push a socialist agenda. Note, the NLRB violated the 10th amendment but backed off after they forced Boeing to make an offer to the union. These appointments, and misuse of power by Obama and these departments make congress usless rendering dictatorship. Also note, That Obama, that same day, made a speech in a high School touting he would side steep congress to get what he wants, but not necessarily what is godd for the country and not what the people want. This is no more than a total diaregard to the law of the land and unless someone, something steps, congress will no longer have a function and we will abide by Obama’s rule!!
Linda
January 5th, 2012
4:50 pm
Here we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we are spending–every day. That means we need to get rid of 40% of the fed. govt.! That is, get rid of 40% of it we ALREADY have.
To get rid of the $15 T debt, we need to get rid of another 10% of the fed. govt.
That’s right! We need to get rid of HALF of the fed. govt. NOW!
We don’t need any more govt. bureaus. We need to close at least half of the ones we have.
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
5:00 pm
“The Republicans said they will block any and all nominations because they do not like the law. They are trying to bypass the Constitution and create a new way to create or change laws.”
So two wrongs make a right I guess….
John
January 5th, 2012
5:01 pm
Cosby
January 5th, 2012
4:49 pm
I love how all these name calling by people who don’t seem to do any research and educate themselves…but my come to haunt them. Obama is a socialist is one of them…however, if you do some research, several of his policies like Obamacare originated with the Republican party. The current front runner for the Republican presidential nominee is Romney famous for Romneycare which was used to fashion Obamacare. Dictatorship…when it’s Republicans willing to sacrifice the country just to make sure Obama is a one term president. Republicans with their “my way or no way” attitude not willing to compromise any.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
5:02 pm
John@4:43, You missed the entire point. It’s President Obama who is dishonoring & disrespecting the office of president, the congressional rules, the relevance of congress, the constitution & its three branches of power.
There is nothing new with blocking appointments & blocking funding. What Obama did was unprecedented.
td
January 5th, 2012
5:02 pm
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
4:42 pm
You are correct but libs have no clue about the Constitution so I just put another thing out for them to think about.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
5:03 pm
If the law has no constitutional bases then it is the law that is trying to bypass the constitution, John.
You progressives need to learn what is meant by governing inside the confines of the constitution. Neither the labor broad or this protection agency has a bases listed in the commerce clause to be created in the first place.
Amend the constitution before you write your law, that is the process.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
5:13 pm
Same old, same old. How many times does this make that Obama has side-stepped congress? By my count, forty-eleven.
The worst was giving the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions when the Senate refused to pass his cap & trade scheme. Now, look at our utility bills! That’s one of the major promises that Obama kept. He said that under his plan, utility rates would necessarily skyrocket! What a guy!
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
5:15 pm
“Amend the constitution before you write your law, that is the process.”
This reminds me of something I thought about recently. Would today’s Congress (or the Congress of the last say, 30 years when it really started expanding its power) even think it would be necessary to amend the Constitution for something like Prohibition? Or would they consider it part of the Commerce Clause or something else? I think not. I think today’s Congress would just pass a law stating that no liquor could be manufactured or sold in the US. So what’s changed over the last 80 or so years? Does Congress just think that it’s too difficult and time consuming process to amend the Constitution that they don’t even try anymore? And if so, do they consider that it may end up in the courts? Do they care?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...Happy New Year!!
January 5th, 2012
5:16 pm
obozo is just a typical liberal goon, they will stick you with a bunch of laws and regulations that they have no intentions of following.
obozo’s kids in a private school?
al-Gore’s energy hog mansion?
michelle obozo’s giant rear end?
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
5:18 pm
@Ross Perot January 5th, 2012 4:39 pm – I can’t wait for this freedom taker to get flushed in the next election like the t#rd that he is.
*******************************************************
The way it looks Rossy, compared to the alternatives it is a CAKE WALK FOR OBAMA .
Unless those idiot republican candidats GET A BRAIN AND SOME COMPASSION.
S- W -I -S -H…..that is the sound of republican t*rds headed to the cesspool.
John
January 5th, 2012
5:19 pm
Linda
January 5th, 2012
5:02 pm
Let’s talk about dishonor and disrespect…who was it during a Presidential state of the Union address yell “you lie”? Was that being honorable and respectful? When the President invited John Boehner into his office for negotiations and John Boehner declined…was that showing respect? Who was it that said their only goal is to make sure Obama is a one term president…was that being respectful? Who constantly walks away from negotiations…is that being respectful? The list can go on and on but I’m sure you remember some of these and more.
Dusty
January 5th, 2012
5:19 pm
Good points COSBY & LINDA,
Yep, Obama wants to be king of the hill He comes from a two week vacation, grabs up prewritten speeches on how to be tough, and tries to blank out Congress by hook or crook, mostly CROOK.
He just doesn’t get it. American do not want a KING. They want a leader and he does not have the slightest resemblence to one, even as hard as his followers try. He does make a magnificent mess in Washington !
And right, Linda, Americans want a compact government tending to business per the constitution and not running down every business in the country.
So we are getting more ‘watchdogs’ at high prices for every single move we make. Obama leads the expensive pack to watch us. Meanwhile Americans anxiously watch the national debt growing like Topsy.
The next election can’t come soon enough.
John
January 5th, 2012
5:22 pm
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
5:03 pm
Isn’t that up to the courts to decide? Isn’t that why we have a court system? When has Congress been the final word on what’s Constitutional or not? If one party feels a law is unconstitutional, they can file a lawsuit and let the courts decide…until the courts declare it unconstitutional, it’s the law and must be followed.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
5:24 pm
@ Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin…Happy New Year!!
January 5th, 2012 5:16 pm – obozo’s kids in a private school? al-Gore’s energy hog mansion?
michelle obozo’s giant rear end?
****************************************************
Listen Port, so what if the obama kids are in a private school. Are you mad because your kids can’t afford to go?
Are you mad because your pig sty is not energy efficient?
ANGRY WHITE MEN love to TALK ABOUT MICHELLE’S REAR END! Mmmmmmm. Are you envious of Obama because his wife has a nice rear end AND YOUR WIFE IS FLAT, PALE AND FLABBY?
Hillbilly D
January 5th, 2012
5:25 pm
The way things are going the last few years, I wouldn’t be surprised to James Buchanan make a comeback.
John
January 5th, 2012
5:26 pm
Linda
January 5th, 2012
5:13 pm
Educate yourself by doing some research…cap and trade originated with the Republicans. They were for it until Obama supported it and then they became against it. Even John McCain and Sarah Palin supported cap and trade when they ran in 2008.
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
5:28 pm
“Isn’t that up to the courts to decide? ”
Until they don’t decide in your favor and then you just complain about how there’s too many “conservatives” or “original intent” judges on there…. which leads to more filibustering and blocking of judicial nominees and the whole cycle starts over again.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
5:31 pm
@Get Real January 5th, 2012 4:29 pm – I just a vido from 2008 with then canidate Obama stating that in his White House he WILL NOT be by passing congress…whatever gets you elected…..
****************************************
HUH? you say- “I just a vdio from 2008″ WHAT? “that in his White House he WILL NOT be by passing congress.”
WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. NONE OF THAT MADE SENSE!
YOU people are so full of HATE that YOU CANNOT EVEN TALK OR EXPRESS YOURSELF COHERENTLY.
carlosgvv
January 5th, 2012
5:34 pm
td – 4:32
Which Party refuses, under any circumstances, to raise taxes on the rich? Which Party constantly complains about all the regulations on Big Business? Hint – it’s not the Democrats.
Dusty
January 5th, 2012
5:35 pm
John, please …don’t be laughable.
For any Democrat to even talk about respect for a president is absolutely rediculous.
For eight long years, Bush had Democratic venom and lies poured upon him. He had shoes thrown at him, lies about his military record, courts had to decide on votes always challenged by Dems to no avail, protest marches on his vacations in Crawford, disgrace announced when he choked on a pretzel, insinuations about his wife’s wreck of long ago, newspeople snooping his daughter’s outings, even charges that Bush “set-up” nine eleven to start a war. Do I need to continue with the revolting occurances done by liberals?
I think you better change the subject on to something that makes sense. I admit, that is pretty hard to do with the president we have now.
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
5:35 pm
“Even John McCain and Sarah Palin supported cap and trade when they ran in 2008.”
Big whoop. McCain also co-sponsored the abomination of a bill called McCain-Feingold. And he was also against “torture”…. just because a Republican supports something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea (ie just about everything Lindsey Graham supports) and all us other Republicans must also support it. Contrary to some, we don’t do that lock-step thing.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
5:37 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 5:02 pm – Michael H. Smith You are correct but libs have no clue about the Constitution so I just put another thing out for them to think about.
*************************************
TEE DEE YOU AIN’T THE SHARPEST KNIFE IN THE DRAWER BUDDY!
In fact you are dull as heck.!! Who made you the grand authority on the constitution?
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
5:38 pm
“YOU people are so full of HATE that YOU CANNOT EVEN TALK OR EXPRESS YOURSELF COHERENTLY.’
Says the person who deems it necessary to use CAPS for some reason. Are you also filled with hate and need to yell?
td
January 5th, 2012
5:41 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
How was it that Bill Clinton could work with Newt to get things accomplished while Obama can not get anything done? Do you really think Newt whole motivation not to make sure Clinton did not have a second term? Newt shut down the government, forced Clinton to sign welfare reform by sending it back to him 3 times after vetoes and investigated him into impeachment. Do you think Obama has it worse now? Did you ever consider Obama may not be a leader?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...Happy New Year!!
January 5th, 2012
5:41 pm
Listen Port, so what if the obama kids are in a private school. Are you mad because your kids can’t afford to go?
My kids went to private schools and you never heard me whining about them at the same time, like obozo does, turdblossom.
Idi Amin’s big butt leaves the room fifteen minutes after she does. Things such as this do not float my boat, so to speak. Why would it, is there something I’m missing, freak?
Dusty
January 5th, 2012
5:42 pm
Hillbilly D
Tell me more about Buchanan. He doesn’t stand out in my history of presidents.. .
Linda
January 5th, 2012
5:42 pm
John@5:19, No president was more disrespected than Bush, especially by Democrats in congress on national TV. However, pointing the finger at others who might (or might not) have been disrespectful to any president does not lessen the implications of any president himself being disrespectful & dishonorable to his own office.
Obama is a likable guy, highly intelligent, great family man, handsome, super speaker, etc. However, he has made every attempt to “transform America,” as he promised. The Nov. election will decide the future of our country & our way of life. Anyone who loves America & who has a tinker’s wit as to what is happening will make it his or her personal goal to make sure Obama is a one-term president. That’s not disrespectful. It’s the truth.
Hillbilly D
January 5th, 2012
5:43 pm
Dusty
He’s in most people’s bottom 5 list, including mine. In my opinion, he did a whole of damage and right off, I can’t think of anything that he accomplished.
John
January 5th, 2012
5:44 pm
Dusty
January 5th, 2012
5:35 pm
Wasn’t that after 8 years of Republicans going after Clinton? Didn’t Republicans bring up impeachment proceedings? Didn’t Republicans shut down the government during a pi**ing match with Clinton? And didn’t they pay the price?
Can you name the Congressional member who threw shoes at Bush? What Congressional members protested at Bush’s ranch in Crawford? Again, name the Congressional members who did these things you are accusing them of doing?
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
5:45 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 3:44 pm I swear I am going to actually think of all these libs on these blogs votes not being counted and laugh out loud in the voting booth when I cast my vote for the Republican.
*****************************************************
Tee Dee laugh first while you can……..BECAUSE “he who laughs last, laughs best.”
td
January 5th, 2012
5:47 pm
Linda
January 5th, 2012
5:42 pm
Amen Linda. I do not despise the man but I hate with a passion the direction he is taking the country, his policies, his philosophy and his ideology. Therefore, he must be defeated at all cost because of these reasons.
Dusty
January 5th, 2012
5:49 pm
Carlos,
Wealth envy AGAIN? You have run that one in the ground.
The wealthy already pay higher taxes than the less affluent.
If you could make more money, you would be paying higher taxes too. I’m sorry you can’t do it.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
5:51 pm
@ Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin…Happy New Year!!
January 5th, 2012 5:41 pm – My kids went to private schools and you never heard me whining about them at the same time, like obozo does, turdblossom.
Idi Amin’s big butt leaves the room fifteen minutes after she does. Things such as this do not float my boat, so to speak. Why would it, is there something I’m missing, freak?
*******************************************************
Whinny if your kids went to private school why can’t Obama’s?
Whinny you were the first to bring up Michelle’s rear end. You MUST BE FANTASIZING ABOUT IT!
Whinny that rear end FLOATS YOUR BOAT. mmmmmmmmm
JDW
January 5th, 2012
5:52 pm
@Kyle…”The problem is that the Senate is not in recess.”
Debatable…lets put it this way, everyone went home and they aren’t coming back until Jan 23. To me that constitutes a recess.
BTW The Constitution does not define recess but Webster’s says…temporary withdrawal or cessation from the usual work or activity.
Sounds like leaving town until Jan 23 fits the bill.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
5:53 pm
John@5:26, Don’t start insulting me by telling me to educate myself. You start insulting me & you can talk to yourself. Understand?
You missed the point, again. It was Gore that signed the UN treaty (which meant nil). Clinton filed it in a drawer, knowing congress would never pass it. The point was that King Obama side-stepped his Democratically-controlled congress & implemented it thru his EPA.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
5:55 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 5:41 pm – . Do you think Obama has it worse now? Did you ever consider Obama may not be a leader?
**************************************************
Tee baby, no one give a rats behind what you think. Everyone on here has an opinion.
Opinions are like?……………. everyone has one.
Ross Perot
January 5th, 2012
5:55 pm
Which Party refuses, under any circumstances, to raise taxes on the rich? Which Party constantly complains about all the regulations on Big Business?
Which party thinks government spending creates permanent jobs? Which party thinks taxing the wealthy would even put a dent in the deficit? Which party lies to people and tells them Social Security and Medicare are sustainable? Which party wont tell you how much Obamacare is going to cost for your family? Which party used Fast and Furious as a ploy to get people to support stricter gun laws? HMMM
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 5th, 2012
5:56 pm
The big-eared retard, who spent billions bailing out GM that have not been repaid, ended up subsidizing the offshoring of Chevy Volt manufacturing, and handing its technology to the Chinese.
Nice job, crony capitalist Obozo! You Obozo receptacles must be so proud!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 5th, 2012
5:59 pm
JDW: BTW The Constitution does not define recess
——————–
How did Harry Reid and the Democrat party define it during our President Bush’s administration?
Hypocrite.
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
6:05 pm
Guess I’ll post it again for the late comers:
“According to a 1993 brief from the Clinton Justice Department, Congress must remain adjourned for at least three days before the adjournment constitutes a “recess” for the purposes the recess appointment power.
The origin of this three day period is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.”
In other words, the president can only recess appoint when the Senate has adjourned for more than three days, and the Senate cannot adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the House.
There is recent precedent for this action and for its legitimacy.In fact, then-Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote to the Supreme Court on April 26, 2010:“Although a President may fill such vacancies through the use of his recess appointment power … the Senate may act to foreclose this option by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time over a lengthy period. For example, the Senate did not recess intrasession for more than three days at a time for over a year beginning in late 2007.””
Dusty
January 5th, 2012
6:06 pm
JOHN,
You talked about respect. I’m telling you it seemed to be every Democrat that lacked it, including those in Congress. They were out to get Bush ’cause they couldn’t elect a Dem president..
If you think Democrats during Bush’s terms were little ladies & gentlemen, you are living in lala land. Review all your Demo files to see what had to be covered. Might reftresh your memory.
And now TD,
Wants to blame the outrageous behavior and legal encounters done by Clinton as something the Republicans did.
No TD, Newt had nothing to do with Clinton’s “girlfriends”. Clinton took care of that all by himself.
Wow, what next from liberals here? Republicans tried to sink Washington when he crossed the Delaware?
John
January 5th, 2012
6:14 pm
Dusty
January 5th, 2012
6:06 pm
Let’s be real…who hired a special prosecutor to go after Clinton for the 8 years before Bush? I don’t recall a special prosecutor being hired during the Bush administration. Who brought up impeachment proceedings against a president?
If you think Republicans during Clinton’s terms were little ladies & gentlemen, you are living in lala land. Review all your Repubes files to see what had to be covered. Might reftresh your memory.
Dusty
January 5th, 2012
6:15 pm
Hillbilly D,
Thanks for the bit on Buchanan. Yep, does seem like we are having a replay of those times, one we don’t need.
Well, I go to enjoy some grits and ham for dinner. So good!! Who need karma when you’ve got grits???
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 5th, 2012
6:17 pm
“who hired a special prosecutor to go after Clinton for the 8 years before Bush?”
————————
Well, since the Justice Department hires special prosecutors, and Clinton was in office at the time, it would have been Democrats who hired the special prosecutor.
Why do you ask?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 5th, 2012
6:18 pm
Who brought up impeachment proceedings against a president?
———————
Who obstructed justice?
Dusty
January 5th, 2012
6:19 pm
John,
Please make up your own lines. Clinton wasn’t a bad president except for his moral low life IN THE WHITEHOUSE and elsewhere. You can’t change history as hard as you try.
td
January 5th, 2012
6:19 pm
carlosgvv
January 5th, 2012
5:34 pm
td – 4:32
Which Party refuses, under any circumstances, to raise taxes on the rich? Which Party constantly complains about all the regulations on Big Business? Hint – it’s not the Democrats
And tell us again how raising taxes on the rich are going to solve our deficit problems? Tell us how increasing the cost of doing business (regulations) are going to incentivize companies to hire? It may make you feel good that those dirty evil rich are paying more but it is not going to solve any problem. You just do not have a clue about business do you?
Linda
January 5th, 2012
6:19 pm
I was born & raised as a Democrat by Democratic parents in a Democratic town & am still a registered Democrat, as far as I know. The Democratic Party changed years ago & thank God I had the sense to see the light.
There are at least 3 types of Democrats today:
1. the gimmes, those who are “kept”
2. the uninformed, the misinformed, the gullible & the just-plain-stupid, &
3. the elites
Democrats are either in the herd or are the herders.
John
January 5th, 2012
6:20 pm
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
6:05 pm
I don’t think the Clinton Justice Department is the US Supreme Court. Are you trying to say what the Clinton Justice Department said is the law of the land? The Justice Department, under both Democrat and Republicans, have been know to be wrong before. Didn’t the Bush Justice Department believe torture, such as waterboarding, is legal? Is that the same view today’s Justice Department have?
td
January 5th, 2012
6:23 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
5:55 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 5:41 pm – . Do you think Obama has it worse now? Did you ever consider Obama may not be a leader?
**************************************************
Tee baby, no one give a rats behind what you think. Everyone on here has an opinion.
Opinions are like?……………. everyone has one.
The truth sort of messes up that little story line about oh how bad the messiah is being persecuted by those evil white Republicans. What is wrong can you not handle the truth so you come with insults? Typical liberal tactic.
td
January 5th, 2012
6:28 pm
Dusty
January 5th, 2012
6:06 pm
I was in no way attempting to say it is the Republicans fault that Clinton got a Lewisky in the oral office. I was pointing out to another lib, who thinks Obama is being persecuted by the whitey republicans, that Clinton had it just as hard and was able to provide leadership at the same time so why can not Obama do the same.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
6:31 pm
John@6:20, I don’t think that fear is torture. Otherwise, I wouldn’t ride the Scream Machine, etc., but since you do, what do you think is worse: waterboarding or rendition? Rendition is the practice of sending terrorist suspects to third countries for detention & interrogation, countries such as Egypt & Syria with histories of torture. You are aware that Obama continued rendition, aren’t you?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
6:38 pm
John, no, this is the law of the land:
“The origin of this three day period is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.”
The other parts of the quote were two (Democratic) justice department opinions of what that text defines as a “recess”.
Again, how would you have felt if Bush made recess appointments in 2007 when Reid kept Congress is “session” also for the explicit reason of preventing Bush from making recess appointments?
John
January 5th, 2012
6:38 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
6:28 pm
Other than being a Republican talking point, how is Obama not being a leader? Whether you like them are not, he has accomplished a good bit. Both parties tried passing healthcare legislation over the past 2 or 3 decades…Obama got it done. He cut taxes. created consumer protection, among many other accomplishments. The one in Washington that doesn’t seem to be a good leader is John “crybaby” Boehner. He can’t even get his own bills to pass at times.
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
6:40 pm
And I’m pretty sure I know the answer no matter what you say…. afterall, you already basically stated that (with this issue) that two wrongs would make a right or the ends justify the means.
John
January 5th, 2012
6:40 pm
Linda
January 5th, 2012
6:31 pm
So Linda, you would be ok with our soldiers being treated in the same manner…as you say, it’s only fear and not torture so it would be perfectly ok with you, right?
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
January 5th, 2012
6:40 pm
Obama is not a good leader because he is Muslim from Kenya. And, oh, that he’s black.
Especially that.
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
6:41 pm
“He cut taxes.”
Yay! $20/week….
Stephenson Billings
January 5th, 2012
6:44 pm
“So Linda, you would be ok with our soldiers being treated in the same manner…as you say, it’s only fear and not torture so it would be perfectly ok with you, right?”
Of course if we’re just nice to everybody, they’ll be nice to us back :rolleyes: . According to some videos I saw, they’re already treating our soldiers worse than we ever would treat them. ijs.
td
January 5th, 2012
6:46 pm
John
January 5th, 2012
6:38 pm
Yes, Obama got his socialist agenda, like Obamacare, done during the first two years when he had super democratic majorities in Congress. How much leadership did that take? Matter of fact did he not leave it to Congress to pass stimulus and health care and he just signed the bills? Is this leadership?
What has he been able to do since the Republicans took back the House of Reps? Why can he not compromise? Where is any leadership here? Why could Bill Clinton get things done with Newt (according to you libs the most hard core mean spirited conservative ever) as speaker and Obama can not get anything done with the “crybaby” as speaker?
Linda
January 5th, 2012
6:55 pm
John@6:40, The terrorists are decapitating our soldiers, dragging their bodies thru the streets & then setting them on fire. That is why they are called TERRORISTS.
The terrorists who have been set free from Gitmo are returning to the battlefield & are being re-captured because they missed Gitmo, AKA the Ritz.
John
January 5th, 2012
6:55 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
6:46 pm
“What has he been able to do since the Republicans took back the House of Reps? Why can he not compromise? Where is any leadership here? ”
Let’s see…didn’t he just recently get the his payroll tax cut extended? Didn’t he get the Democrats fully behind him and force Republicans to split and fight amongst themselves? Didn’t he stand up to Speaker John Boehner and force him to eat crow? He didn’t back down to the non-compromising Republicans and he got it done…sounds like leadership to me.
@@
January 5th, 2012
7:07 pm
So Panetta went back to Rumsfeld’s “leaner/meaner” approach? And here I thought nobody liked Rumsfeld’s way of doing things. Hope nuthin’ big arrives on our doorstep….talk about being stretched thin.
Oh well, Paul, next door will be thrilled. Don’t know where they’re gonna find jobs?
A Clayton County grand jury will convene later this month to hear corruption charges against former Sheriff Victor Hill.
I HAVE A DREAM!!!!!!
schnirt
@@
January 5th, 2012
7:25 pm
….how is Obama not being a leader?
Obama’s foreign policy failures:
Being repeatedly behind the curve on the Arab Spring, waffling on Iran’s nuclear program, botching the drawdown and military exit from Iraq, losing Pakistan, further alienating Israel, and getting left holding an empty bag on the Russia “re-set.”
His biggest failure as it relates not only to foreign policy but national security?
The Obama Administration’s Most Substantial Failure: The National Debt. Recently retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen frequently called the national debt “the single biggest threat” to our national security. Yet it was also the biggest failure of the Obama Administration during the year, a failure that might hurt America for decades to come. What was the White House’s fault on this? Part of it was, to paraphrase Governor Mitch Daniels, a failure of arithmetic: presiding over the increase of the debt to the unfathomable amount of $15 trillion (an unprecedented increase of $4 trillion just since Obama took office) without making any effort to reform entitlement spending. But the bigger part of the failure was the White House’s cheap demagoguery that attacked any credible plan such as Paul Ryan’s, and the cynical disregard of bipartisan efforts such as Obama’s own Simpson-Bowles Commission. All of which further poisoned the political environment and put any prospects for fiscal sanity on life support.
Can’t remember where I read that but I agree. The dream of all liberals has always been to cut defense. The dream of all our enemies was to diminish our nation’s defense. Obama has fulfilled our enemies’ dream.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
7:26 pm
@Linda January 5th, 2012 6:19 pm – There are at least 3 types of Democrats today:
1. the gimmes, those who are “kept”
2. the uninformed, the misinformed, the gullible & the just-plain-stupid, &
3. the elites
Democrats are either in the herd or are the herders.
********************************************************************************************
Linda baby, you don’t sound like you are too swift. If you were one of the three YOU ONLY HAVE YOURSELF TO BLAME.
By the way Linda, I am a democrat and baby I DO NOT FALL IN ANY OF THOSE CATEGORIES.
Just because YOU were either one of the gimmes, those who are “kept”, the uninformed, the misinformed, the gullible & the just-plain-stupid, or one of the elites –
DON’T BLAME THE DEMOCRATS BLAME YOURSELF.
Ross Perot
January 5th, 2012
7:31 pm
So Panetta went back to Rumsfeld’s “leaner/meaner” approach? And here I thought nobody liked Rumsfeld’s way of doing things. Hope nuthin’ big arrives on our doorstep….talk about being stretched thin.
So they cut back after expanding their asia pacific presence with the bases in Australia? Hmmm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
7:36 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 6:23 pm – The truth sort of messes up that little story line about oh how bad the messiah is being persecuted by those evil white Republicans. What is wrong can you not handle the truth so you come with insults? Typical liberal tactic
************************************************
HUH? WHAT? MESSIAH? WHAT INSULTS? DUH? Blah Blah Blah. Yeah Yeah Yeah!
Boo who who!
Republicans would not know the truth if it SLAPPED THEM ON THEIR FACE.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
7:41 pm
@@@ January 5th, 2012 7:25 pm – Can’t remember where I read that but I agree. The dream of all liberals has always been to cut defense. The dream of all our enemies was to diminish our nation’s defense. Obama has fulfilled our enemies’ dream.
***************************************************************
TO ALL OF YOU GENIUSES WHO NEVER WENT TO COLLEGE let alone been inside one…..if you all HAVE THE ANSWERS……..then RUN FOR PRESIDENT and SOLVE ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS
Most of you WOULD NOT HAVE THE GUTS OR THE EDUCATION TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.
.
td
January 5th, 2012
7:42 pm
John
January 5th, 2012
6:55 pm
If you really think your examples are of a true leader then you my friend have never held a leadership position. You have never met a payroll and you have never had to convince someone do do something they really did not want to do.
td
January 5th, 2012
7:47 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
7:41 pm
What was your major in College? I can tell by your post it sure was not anything in the Business arena, not much understanding of politics so that is out and by using all those caps English is out of the question. Wait, let me guess liberal arts or urban studies? Maybe, engineering?
@@
January 5th, 2012
7:47 pm
So they cut back after expanding their asia pacific presence with the bases in Australia?
Air and naval assets mostly. 250 Marines to start…ending with 2,500 total.
It’s a huge expansion….HUGE, I tell ‘ya!!!
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...Happy New Year!!
January 5th, 2012
7:48 pm
Hey, look, it’s Ron Paul in a clown suit-
obozo: the US can no longer fight the world’s battles
“President” plans to cut half a million troops and says US can’t afford to wage two wars at once
Just sayin….
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
7:49 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
6:19 pm
And tell us again how raising taxes on the rich are going to solve our deficit problems? Tell us how increasing the cost of doing business (regulations) are going to incentivize companies to hire?
It’s not the government’s duty to incentive managers to hire. Unless–OMG!–you’re secretly in favor of government intervention in markets!!
@@
January 5th, 2012
7:50 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?:
Why do you always end your angry posts with a smiley face?
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
7:52 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 7:42 pm – If you really think your examples are of a true leader then you my friend have never held a leadership position. You have never met a payroll and you have never had to convince someone do do something they really did not want to do.
******************************************************
Tee baby, YEAH RIGHT like you have ever met a payroll and had to convince someone to do something.
Ha…….anyone who is on the blog as much as you are and make the ignorant comments that you make CANNOT BE A LEADER.
The only thing you CAN LEAD is the other republicans who think like you.
The blind leading the blind.
td
January 5th, 2012
7:53 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
7:41 pm
BTW: What does attending college have to do with being smart? I have seen Phds who did not have the common sense to get out of the rain. Really the only things having a degree proves is that one has either the resources or the persistence to sit and class and study.
One thing that can be said about your statement is that it proves you are an elitist.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
7:53 pm
Linda
January 5th, 2012
6:55 pm
John@6:40, The terrorists are decapitating our soldiers, dragging their bodies thru the streets & then setting them on fire. That is why they are called TERRORISTS.
The terrorists who have been set free from Gitmo are returning to the battlefield & are being re-captured because they missed Gitmo, AKA the Ritz.
You’re not a very good gimmick
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
7:54 pm
@@@ January 5th, 2012 7:50 pm – Why do you always end your angry posts with a smiley face?
*******************************************
Because I CAN.
YES WE CAN.
td
January 5th, 2012
7:57 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
7:52 pm
I will bet you money that I make more money in one day then you do in a week.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
8:00 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 7:53 pm – BTW: What does attending college have to do with being smart? I have seen Phds who did not have the common sense to get out of the rain. Really the only things having a degree proves is that one has either the resources or the persistence to sit and class and study.
One thing that can be said about your statement is that it proves you are an elitist.
*****************************************************
You made my point – “the only things having a degree proves is that one has either the resources or the persistence to sit and class and study.”
The KEY WORD IS PERSISTENCE. Anyone can attend college if they have the grades.
Obviously your parents did not teach you ANYTHING about pursuing a higher education.
Don’t blame me blame YOURSELF or your parents.
td
January 5th, 2012
8:01 pm
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
7:49 pm
There is more then one way to incentivize. Cutting regulations and taxes is the way I was talking about. I know you libs think the word means paying someone to do nothing like in welfare.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
8:01 pm
Why@7:26, I am not your baby.
There’s another “thingie” about Democrats. They lie & attack their opposition when they have absolutely nothing to say. I may not be as swift as I was when I was younger, but I guarantee you that I can run circles around anyone with the mentality of a 3-year-old & the manners of an orphan.
Your category is definitely #3, probably closer to the end.
BTW, I left the Democratic Party BEFORE they herded their sheep into the pen.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
8:04 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 7:57 pm – I will bet you money that I make more money in one day then you do in a week.
************************************
You are so juvenile. I am not going to play your game.
You keep proving my point that republicans are so angry.
Whats up with that?
td
January 5th, 2012
8:07 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
8:00 pm
You obviously do not have a degree or you would have answered my other post. If you had any reading comprehension skills then you would know that I was in Newts (Masters level) class at KSU in 1993 so I do have a degree.
Your use of caps and smart butt remarks proves you do not have the intellectual capability to defend and debate your philosophy to well. Keep it up and show the whole world what you truly lack my friend.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
8:08 pm
Why@7:26, I meant to say that your category is definitely #2, probably closer to the end.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
8:08 pm
@Linda January 5th, 2012 8:01 pm – Why@7:26, I am not your baby.
I may not be as swift as I was when I was younger, but I guarantee you that I can run circles around anyone with the mentality of a 3-year-old & the manners of an orphan. Your category is definitely #3, probably closer to the end. BTW, I left the Democratic Party BEFORE they herded their sheep into the pen.
**************************************
You just proved my point. Why are Republicans so angry?
BTW…..the only circles you are going to run around are the ones around your eyes.
Shame on you for saying that about orphans. YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
8:12 pm
@Linda January 5th, 2012 8:08 pm – Why@7:26, I meant to say that your category is definitely #2, probably closer to the end.
************************************************
You are not THE SHARPEST KNIFE IN THE DRAWER ARE YOU?
Make up your mind. Which is? #2 or #3?
Think about it and get back to me.
td
January 5th, 2012
8:17 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
8:12 pm
We can tell you either do not have a significant other or are a true subordinate in a any relationship you may or may not be in making statements like these. Keep on giving yourself away.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
8:17 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 8:07 pm – you would know that I was in Newts (Masters level) class at KSU in 1993 so I do have a degree.
Your use of caps and smart butt remarks proves you do not have the intellectual capability to defend and debate your philosophy to well. Keep it up and show the whole world what you truly lack my friend.
******************************************
I would not brag about being in Newt’s (Masha Level) class. I am not IMPRESSED.
I stopped trying to have a rational and intellectual debate with people who have no interest in what I have to say.or think! Only what they have to say or believe matters.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
8:20 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 8:17 pm – We can tell you either do not have a significant other or are a true subordinate in a any relationship you may or may not be in making statements like these. Keep on giving yourself away.
**********************************
Who do you think I am getting these comments from?
They said to tell you to stop being SO ANGRY. It ain’t that serious.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
8:26 pm
Why@8:08, You have been talking to yourself for hours. Everyone ignored your rants until you began addressing some of us by name. You are hopeless & helpless & unworthy of any more of my time or that belonging to any other conservative, for that matter. Please return to ranting to yourself.
I apologize if I hurt the feelings of any orphan. I just feel fortunate that I had two loving parents that raised me to know better than trying to insult ladies & using crude remarks directed toward them.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
8:27 pm
John
January 5th, 2012
5:22 pm
NO! That’s the problem, they pass a law that they know isn’t constitutional and they hope nobody challenges it or the court will legislate in their favor. Nah that’s just crap and it is exactly why things are in a mess.
HELL NO JOHN IT”S NOT UP TO THE COURTS TO DECIDE, IT IS UP TO WE THE PEOPLE!
Where JOHN, does this government and that includes “THE COURT”
derive, get, receive, its powers to govern over us. From our hands JOHN BY OUR CONSENT from we the people(and that isn’t limited to or by an election sir!). You and liberals like you are so damn consumed by government you must think your rights are given to you by government and you are dead brain dead wrong if that is the case. We are endowed with our rights by our creator under the authority of nature’s law and the laws of nature’s GOD and that JOHN, MAKES US AND OUR RIGHTS SUPERIOR TO THIS GOVERNMENT AND ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS. GOT IT!
Change the constitution, then change the laws that is what we, NOT WHAT THE COURTS, should do.
td
January 5th, 2012
8:35 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
8:20 pm
“It ain’t that serious”
This is where is are so wrong. This is the future of mine and your children at stake in the decisions this country makes next year. We are either going to turn into a European socialist welfare state or we are going to have a chance to give our children and grandchildren the same opportunity as our parents and grandparents gave us. Do you want your children to be big government welfare recipients or do you want them to have a chance to succeed?
John
January 5th, 2012
8:38 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
7:42 pm
I dunno but Obama has the Democrats on his side…unlike John Boehner who can’t even pass his own bills in the House he controls.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
8:44 pm
Why@8:12, I earned & hold a Bachelor of Science Degree from one of the largest universities in the Southeastern United States. There are a lot of people who consider me sharp, people who actually matter.
I think even you know that you are not included in category #3, the elites.
To answer your question so that you can move on, Republicans are not angry. Fiscal conservatives, which include Republicans, Independents & moderate Democrats, are scared. The polls prove it. We all think our country is headed in the wrong direction & agree with the Defense Dept. that our national debt is the greatest national security threat to our country.
At the same time, Obama & the progressives are still trying to spend our way into prosperity with money that we do not have, money borrowed from China or printed by the Federal Reserve out of thin air, contributing to our run-away inflation, another problem unaddressed.
Obama & the progressives know exactly what they are doing. They know that their plan of action is to the detriment of the US economy.
Get Real
January 5th, 2012
8:57 pm
John….why don’t you give up while you are behind
John
January 5th, 2012
9:02 pm
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
8:27 pm
Get off that crack.
“HELL NO JOHN IT”S NOT UP TO THE COURTS TO DECIDE, IT IS UP TO WE THE PEOPLE! ”
When have WE, THE PEOPLE ever decided a court case? When have WE, THE PEOPLE ever vote on a constitutional amendment?
“Where JOHN, does this government and that includes “THE COURT” derive, get, receive, its powers to govern over us. ”
From the US Constitution…maybe you should read it someday.
As far as rights are concerned…what the Declaration of Independence states is…”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ” Where does it mention anything about “under the authority of nature’s law and the laws of nature’s GOD “?
By your argument, that would then mean government cannot stop gay marriage, abortion, murder, rape or anything else if people are doing these things in the pursuit of their happiness.
@@
January 5th, 2012
9:07 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?:
Because I CAN.
You can if ‘ya wanna look like some goofy tween.
@@
January 5th, 2012
9:14 pm
When have WE, THE PEOPLE ever decided a court case?
I helped send a guy to prison for life. I s’pose he could appeal it all the way to SCOTUS. I seriously doubt he will though. If he was smart, he wouldn’t have had three strikes against him.
Repeat offenders…when will they ever learn? Could take their entire lives.
schnirt
John
January 5th, 2012
9:17 pm
@@
January 5th, 2012
9:14 pm
Perhaps I should rephrase that…when have WE, THE PEOPLE ever decided a court case involving the Constitutionality of laws?
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
9:23 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
8:01 pm
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
7:49 pm
There is more then one way to incentivize. Cutting regulations and taxes is the way I was talking about. I know you libs think the word means paying someone to do nothing like in welfare.
Using taxation or tax breaks to encourage or discourage the markets to do certain things is government intervention–of course both sides do this all the time, I just want you to admit you are in favor of the government intervening in markets.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
9:28 pm
Linda
January 5th, 2012
8:44 pm
Why@8:12, I earned & hold a Bachelor of Science Degree from one of the largest universities in the Southeastern United States. There are a lot of people who consider me sharp, people who actually matter.
I think even you know that you are not included in category #3, the elites.
To answer your question so that you can move on, Republicans are not angry. Fiscal conservatives, which include Republicans, Independents & moderate Democrats, are scared. The polls prove it. We all think our country is headed in the wrong direction & agree with the Defense Dept. that our national debt is the greatest national security threat to our country.
At the same time, Obama & the progressives are still trying to spend our way into prosperity with money that we do not have, money borrowed from China or printed by the Federal Reserve out of thin air, contributing to our run-away inflation, another problem unaddressed.
Obama & the progressives know exactly what they are doing. They know that their plan of action is to the detriment of the US economy.
I can tell by your posts that you’ve never been to college.
Anyway, if you want to be angry at presidents who spend beyond their means, you should have included Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and especially Bush II as well.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
9:29 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
8:35 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
8:20 pm
“It ain’t that serious”
This is where is are so wrong. This is the future of mine and your children at stake in the decisions this country makes next year. We are either going to turn into a European socialist welfare state or we are going to have a chance to give our children and grandchildren the same opportunity as our parents and grandparents gave us. Do you want your children to be big government welfare recipients or do you want them to have a chance to succeed?
Jesus Christ, stop it with the “our children and grandchildren” emotional appeals. Live in the now.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...Happy New Year!!
January 5th, 2012
9:38 pm
Talking to Why are Republicans so angry is like talking to a rock or a worm or a liberal.
Why bother?
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
9:39 pm
John
January 5th, 2012
9:02 pm
You get off that crack. You don’t even know what the declaration says if you don’t recognize these words: “the laws of nature and the laws of nature’s GOD”. Yet you talk of what is constitution and don’t know that what you claim is constitutional is not listed in the enumerated powers of article one section eight.
The courts are meant to serve as last resorts not a place to test every law if that were the case let the courts just make up the laws get rid of the other two branches of government.
In your lame opinion:
By your argument, that would then mean government cannot stop gay marriage, abortion, murder, rape or anything else if people are doing these things in the pursuit of their happiness.
You forgot government has to protect life and liberty and that overrules your distorted accusation in the above claim, in pursuit of happiness. Your pursuit of happiness end at the point of my rights to life and liberty.
Oh but wait we’ll have to ask the supreme court if that is too remains constitutional by your funky standard.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
9:41 pm
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
9:39 pm
The courts are meant to serve as last resorts not a place to test every law if that were the case let the courts just make up the laws get rid of the other two branches of government.
Did you skip the week of civics in high school where they talked about how the judicial branch works?
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
9:42 pm
John
January 5th, 2012
9:17 pm
When we repealed slavery. When we repealed prohibition.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
9:46 pm
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
9:41 pm
You are talking nonsense to try an make your argument correct. If you cannot give a constitutional bases for a law it shouldn’t be brought up before congress let alone passed into a law. That is what is in discussion so you go back to school with your judicial work hooey.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...Happy New Year!!
January 5th, 2012
9:50 pm
Iran bill would bar foreign ships in gulf -Urinal
Never mind that the AJC couldn’t care less about it’s legitimacy, have you ever heard a more ridiculous thing as this?
Dusty
January 5th, 2012
9:50 pm
Well, looks like the “discussion” has drifted somewhat afield. Of course, Kyle’s statement sums it up very well. Lest we forget:”Yesterday’s action by President Obama however, suggests the more likely outcome to an even nastier, dysfunctional Washington.” Yep, nastier, dysfunctional Washington!
Not only likely, but obviously. The man wants to throw his “weight” around to show he’s a big man .
His version of strong leadership. To heck with Washington. The Obama steam roller (full of hot air) is rolling!!
I’m sorry but someone that loves this country does not try to make it a “worse place.” Maybe I should be more charitable. OK. President Obaama simply does not know any better.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
9:50 pm
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
9:46 pm
…If you cannot give a constitutional bases for a law it shouldn’t be brought up before congress
lol, well I guess you are entitled to your off-the-wall opinion
John
January 5th, 2012
9:55 pm
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
9:39 pm
Smoking that crack again, I see. Before you start with you’re WE, THE PEOPLE do some research or take a Civics class. You may discover the Framers were an elite group — among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king — it was created by the people.
It may also help you to understand our 3 branches of government and how each operates.
td
January 5th, 2012
9:55 pm
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
9:29 pm
Jesus Christ, stop it with the “our children and grandchildren” emotional appeals. Live in the now
And you just summed up the entire problem with the libs in this country. Live for the now, live for today, the h3ll with tomorrow, do not save anything tomorrow spend it all today, me, me ,me.
I am sure now with your comments that you are young with no children. You will change your mind one day my friend when you grow up and become a real man and live in the real world.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
9:55 pm
The discussion really hasn’t drifted Dusty, the country has. It’s mostly all about the same things – grabbing power.
JohnnyReb
January 5th, 2012
9:57 pm
I’m late on this thread and 5 pages is too much to read just before nightie-night. However, I must comment on Obama’s trangression. It is a deliberate political calculation; all other rhetoric is BS. The Senate was kept in pro-forma (spelling?) to pass the payroll tax. It can’t be kept in session to legally pass a law, then decided it is not legally in session so Obama can make a recess appointment. Obama could have waited for a true recess; none of the appointments are urgent. He decided to go ahead in order to create controversy and see just how far he can go without getting his hand slapped. If Republicans are smart, they will call his hand on this all the way to court.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
9:57 pm
John
January 5th, 2012
9:55 pm
John you need to go back to the Declaration and the Constitution and learn before you try to give anyone directions to do anything.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
10:00 pm
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
9:50 pm
Worry about your own opinion and wall.
td
January 5th, 2012
10:02 pm
Dusty
January 5th, 2012
9:50 pm
“I’m sorry but someone that loves this country does not try to make it a “worse place.”
If he really loved this country then he would go ahead and do as Truman did and announce that for the good of the country I will not be seeking re election. The country could start healing from the division he has perpetrated on the country the last three years.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
10:02 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 8:35 pm – Do you want your children to be big government welfare recipients or do you want them to have a chance to succeed?
******************************************
Once again…it ain’t that serious. Why are you being a fearmonger?
Speaking of welfare. Today they gave us a look at welfare recipients.
They are:
Whites 37% on welfare
Blacks 24% on welfare
Hispanics 17% on welfare
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO BE ON WELFARE. But it is there to HELP those who find themselves IN NEED OF HELP. Unfortunately, some people make it a career.
Stop yelling fire when there is ONLY a spark! Since Obama became president everyone wants to cry…….”the world is in deep trouble.” But when Bush was president he did what he wanted and NO ONE COMPLAINED. Especially when he put us in TWO WARS and WE LOST THOUSANDS OF YOUNG MEN.
Where were you then?
Stop being a fearmonger because a black man is president. He might be the best thing that ever happened to the United States of America.
He brought out the BEST or the WORST in all of us.
John
January 5th, 2012
10:03 pm
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
9:46 pm
‘If you cannot give a constitutional bases for a law it shouldn’t be brought up before congress let alone passed into a law.”
Have you noticed, this was one of the rules set forth by John Boehner and his Republican caucus in the House…only to be constantly ignore by those same Republicans. Very few of their bills mention Constitutional authority.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
10:04 pm
JohnnyReb
January 5th, 2012
9:57 pm
I wish some very rich people that had nothing but time and money to spend would take all these unconstitutional and illegal maneuvers to court, even if it brought the system down it would finally illustrate to these so-called progressives how far outside of the Constitution they have taken this country.
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
10:06 pm
Yeah, I have noticed but there is something you didn’t notice, are you might have thought before coming back with that cute comment.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
10:07 pm
Darvocet@9:28, Really?
I’m so smart that I can remember what I posted @ 8:44, less than 45 minutes before your post. Redundancy is not required.
What was my give-away? Did I misspell a word? Use a word you didn’t understand? Use a phrase you couldn’t comprehend? My goodness! My bad!
Maybe you could enlighten me (& all of us here on this blog) as to exactly how much each of the presidents you listed added to the debt during their terms. Please include Obama, who, as I understand, is adding as much to the national debt as all of his predecessors combined. Maybe you missed that on the media from which you obtain your information. Maybe you missed the fact that Obama’s ten-year budget he introduced in 2/10 received a vote of 97-0 in the Senate & WHY. Maybe you missed the fact that the US credit was downgraded for the 1st time in history on Obama’s watch because of the Democrats’ SPENDING.
In the meantime, I an waiting breathlessly for your enlightenment. You do know how to Google, don’t you?
Did I mention that my degree was in Economics?
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
10:09 pm
BTW nice to see you on the blog again Linda.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
10:11 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
9:55 pm
when you grow up… and live in the real world.
lol why don’t you just say “I drank the kool-aid” next to supplement your worn-out talking points
Michael H. Smith
January 5th, 2012
10:12 pm
Good night to all.
Donkey for sale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TVeMwWEaIs&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLD33DB476E2765331
td
January 5th, 2012
10:13 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
10:02 pm
“Stop being a fearmonger because a black man is president”
Playing that race card. It can not be a good life to see everything in color my friend. Were have I ever said anything about the mans color? The man is a progressive/European socialist. This is harmful to the American people and he must go. I would say the same thing if it was Hillary running right now because she is the same.
I do not care of the color of the welfare recipients. The vast majority of them are there because of the choices they made in life. The best thing we could do as a nation is to go in and tell them face to face that this is not the way you are going to live your life and in a time certain the benefits will be gone so go and get a skill set that will allow you to support you and your family.
BTW: Can you name the top three similarities in people that receive government benefits?
td
January 5th, 2012
10:16 pm
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
10:11 pm
If by “drinking the kool-aid” you mean that I have determined to live by a certain set of principles and beliefs then you are right. I am a libertarian leaning social conservative and am proud of it and will stand up and defend my positions that I have thoroughly studied and accept as fact.
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
10:19 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 10:02 pm – The country could start healing from the division he has perpetrated on the country the last three years.
*************************************************
Tee Dee is your hatred so deep for Obama that there is no reasoning with you?
Why is YOUR HEART SO BLACK?
Why are you so ANGRY?
What has anyone ever done to you to make you so hateful?
If you cut Obama he bleeds red blood just like you. He is not the creature from the black lagoon.
He is a man, that lives and breaths. Why does he have to be the MONSTER? Why was Bush not the monster?
Some of you have been raised to hate and some of us were raised to LOVE EVERYONE regardless of race. we don’t have to agree but we have to give respect.
It does not make me better than you if you respect me
and
It does not make you better than me if I respect you
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
10:19 pm
* Link
* Report this comment
Linda
January 5th, 2012
10:07 pm
Darvocet@9:28, Really?
I’m so smart that I can remember what I posted @ 8:44, less than 45 minutes before your post. Redundancy is not required.
What was my give-away? Did I misspell a word? Use a word you didn’t understand? Use a phrase you couldn’t comprehend?
You would have flunked ENG 1101 for using ampersands instead of “and,” if the comma splices didn’t get you first. If you had really gone to college, you would have said which one rather than using the nebulous statement “one of the largest universities in the Southeastern United States.”
Maybe you could enlighten me (& all of us here on this blog) as to exactly how much each of the presidents you listed added to the debt during their terms. Please include Obama, who, as I understand, is adding as much to the national debt as all of his predecessors combined.
Again, if you had been to college I wouldn’t have to hold your hand through this. A cursory glace at Wikipedia reveals the mystery! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
You do know how to Google, don’t you?
Irony! I used Google to look up the Wikipedia article I just linked you to in about 10 seconds. Why couldn’t you?
Did I mention that my degree was in Economics?
lol
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
10:20 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
10:16 pm
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
10:11 pm
If by “drinking the kool-aid” you mean that I have determined to live by a certain set of principles and beliefs then you are right.
Well, read my post again until you get the main idea correct.
td
January 5th, 2012
10:28 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
10:19 pm
Jee another person that has zero reading comprehension skills. For the love of Christ man, OBAMA IS A FREAKING WELFARE STATE EUROPEAN SOCIALIST. It is the same on his black half and his white half. I DO NOT HATE THE MAN. I DESPISE WITH EVERY VEIN IN MY BODY HIS PHILOSOPY.
I apologise to everyone else of the blog for using caps but I hope caps is what it takes to get through to the intellectually challenged.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
10:30 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
10:28 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
10:19 pm
Jee another person that has zero reading comprehension skills. For the love of Christ man, OBAMA IS A FREAKING WELFARE STATE EUROPEAN SOCIALIST.
How so
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
10:35 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 10:02 pm
.
Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
Anger or hatred is like a fisherman’s hook. It is very important for us to ensure we are not caught by it.
Good night
td
January 5th, 2012
10:37 pm
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
10:20 pm
Oh my young padawan has so much to learn about life. Do you even know what a philosophy is? Do you have a core set of values? One day you will sit and develop some and then you shall become a true adult. I will give you this piece of advise young one: When you are learning it is much better to read, listen and learn then to spout off at the mouth on matters you do not have a clue about.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
10:39 pm
Michael@10:09, Thanks. Nice to know someone missed me. Great to be back.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
10:43 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
10:37 pm
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
10:20 pm
Oh my young padawan has so much to learn about life. Do you even know what a philosophy is? Do you have a core set of values? One day you will sit and develop some and then you shall become a true adult. I will give you this piece of advise young one: When you are learning it is much better to read, listen and learn then to spout off at the mouth on matters you do not have a clue about.
okay, but you didn’t answer my question–how is Obama a European welfare-state socialist?
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
10:49 pm
@td January 5th, 2012 10:28 pm – I apologise to everyone else of the blog for using caps but I hope caps is what it takes to get through to the intellectually challenged.
***************************************
You “ain’” the sharpest knife in the drawer EITHER If you believe that ranting nonsense (OBAMA IS A FREAKING WELFARE STATE EUROPEAN SOCIALIST).
You need to take a chill pill before you have a stroke!
td
January 5th, 2012
10:54 pm
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
10:43 pm
Here is your first assignment my young padawan. You need to use your superior internet skills and look up the reasons why people consider Obama a European socialist and let us all know your results. I will give you a hint. Obama made the statement to that effect either in a speech or an interview.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
10:55 pm
td
January 5th, 2012
10:54 pm
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
10:43 pm
Here is your first assignment my young padawan. You need to use your superior internet skills and look up the reasons why people consider Obama a European socialist and let us all know your results. I will give you a hint. Obama made the statement to that effect either in a speech or an interview.
Haha once again TD you can’t back up your statements.
Owned!
td
January 5th, 2012
10:57 pm
Why are Republicans so angry? Whats up with that?
January 5th, 2012
10:49 pm
Wait on the research results that my young padawan will reveal the truth to you.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
11:08 pm
Darvocet@10:19, ENGL1101 was before my time. Mine was 101 & beyond. I’m mature & therefore experienced.
This is a blog, not a thesis.
The university I attended, as well as my other personal info, is that, personal. Didn’t notice you shared yours.
Your source of Wikipedia explains a lot. You still did not state precisely the amt. that was added to the natl. debt under each president you listed. I’ll be glad to compare my list with yours, from a more reliable source.
I swear on the the Holy Bible that I have a degree in Economics from one of the largest universities in the Southeastern US. Since you are probably a heathen, that probably means little to you. That’s nice that you are lol. Some of are not.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
11:16 pm
Linda
January 5th, 2012
11:08 pm
Darvocet@10:19, ENGL1101 was before my time. Mine was 101 & beyond. I’m mature & therefore experienced.
This is a blog, not a thesis.
The university I attended, as well as my other personal info, is that, personal. Didn’t notice you shared yours.
I never made the claim I went to college, and even now it’s more evident you didn’t graduate. You may have attended, but you did not graduate.
—————————————————–
Your source of Wikipedia explains a lot. You still did not state precisely the amt. that was added to the natl. debt under each president you listed. I’ll be glad to compare my list with yours, from a more reliable source.
I’m beginning to think you’re another TD alt, the way you refuse to back up claims. The article I linked answered that question sufficiently, but if it did not why didn’t you use Google, as you stated earlier? C’mon, you gotta do better than that.
—————————————————–
Since you are probably a heathen, that probably means little to you.
Let me quote you from page 4: “There’s another “thingie” about Democrats. They lie & attack their opposition when they have absolutely nothing to say..
Oh, you.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
11:16 pm
Darvocet@10:19, I meant to say the ENGL 1101 was AFTER my time.
Why don’t you take one of you & retire for the night? Aren’t you in pain, especially in your neck?
You are an example of why we need to close the natl. Dept. of Education.
Darvocet spending
January 5th, 2012
11:25 pm
Linda
January 5th, 2012
11:16 pm
Darvocet@10:19, I meant to say the ENGL 1101 was AFTER my time.
Why don’t you take one of you & retire for the night? Aren’t you in pain, especially in your neck?
You are an example of why we need to close the natl. Dept. of Education.
I’ll accept this post as your tacit admission of defeat and parting shot for the night
td
January 5th, 2012
11:28 pm
Linda
January 5th, 2012
11:16 pm
Now I am lol over that comment. I have offered to take the young padawan under my wings and train him to leave the dark side of the force and be a good young conservative but alas, he is not ready to become a respectable young man and wants to play silly little young lings games.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
11:36 pm
Darvocet@11:16, Are you one of Obama’s plants on this blog? Are you being paid overtime with our tax dollars?
You didn’t need to make a claim that you went to college. It was evident that you did not.
I could not care less whether you think I attended college, whether I graduated, where I attended or what my degree was or degrees were in.
What I care about is how you/anyone could be so ignorant of the policies of the progressives & the damage they have done to our country & what another 4 yrs. of the Obama Adm. could do to the future of our country. Are you that blind?
Linda
January 5th, 2012
11:52 pm
td@11:28, He could lead everyone in his path to his “handle.” You would have to start over & home-school him to remove his indoctrination. Bless your heart for trying.
Linda
January 5th, 2012
11:56 pm
Darocet@11:25, Defeat? You ain’t seen nothing yet. I’m just getting started. You must have taken my advice. Good night!
The Snark
January 6th, 2012
3:56 pm
Darn that Obama! Using his Constitutional powers, just like his Republican predecessors! The nerve!