Dear Leader's assault on Constitution continues

Incoming. You're about to be accused of taking the side of a guy who...

cites the Washington Times.
eek.gif


At which point, Perham will declare victory!
whiteflag.gif
 
I learned that Perham will argue just for the hell of arguing back on a thread about the Jack Daniels distillery. He will argue when he doesn't know jack diddley squat about what he is saying.

Since learning that about him, I take every post of his with a massive amount of salt. I recommend others do the same.
 
One more time for those who appear to have reading comprehension issues:
THIS IS NOT A RECESS APPOINTMENT, AS TECHNICALLY THE SENATE HAS NOT RECESSED. OBAMA IS SIMPLY IGNORING SENATE RULES AND 'MAKING IT SO.'

Yes, the Rs are using a procedural trick to block this appointment (the same trick Reid and Co used multiple times on Bush), but it is still procedure.
 
the republicans will not approve anybody he appoints to the position because they don't want a government watchdog over the scummy criminals who have been looting us for the last decade plus. I understand their concern.

The person Obama wanted for the post got kicked to the curb because she was likely to be effective. She is now running for the senate and I hope she wins and I can vote for her for president in 2016.

As for the republicans, they are about as germane to a discussion of good government as John Calhoun or the pack of secessionist trash who took Texas out of the union in 1860.

They are on a rule or ruin mission. It is unfortunate we have such a person as Obama as president right now. Truman or Roosevelt would have known how to treat these criminals with the contempt they deserve.

Boehner, Perry, Gingrich, Palin, Romney, the whole bunch are creatures from a slimey place where people like Tom DeLay is considered a genius and Radio cretins are the house intellectuals.
 
As has been rightly pointed out, the question really should surround the procedures. If it's not acceptable to use a pro forma session to block appointments, then the rule needs to be reviewed and changed. But in the meantime, it is in fact the law, and you can't just ignore it. Had Bush ignored it, there would have been a firestorm of criticism from the very people who are championing it now.

And once again, the lies are introduced that claim that the GOP doesn't like the current setup because they want no oversight and no regulation. I don't know a lot of people that believe that there should be no oversight of the payday loan people and similar issues that this is supposed to be addressing.

The lesson here appears to be that most dems responding have no problem giving carte blanche to a single person appointed by and answerable to the president - and if you oppose that, you're trying to "gut" the program. I'm starting to realize why so many leftists sympathize with dictators - because that's the type of government they want. as long as it's your guy, checks and balances go out the window!
 
The sick irony of it all is, the Democrats, who can't write enough new laws telling us how to behave, seem to have the toughest time actually FOLLOWING the laws that are already on the books.

I guess it's a pretty good strategy for those without a moral compass. (and a compliant media) Take advantage of your opponent's integrity by implementing rules you know only he will follow.
 
Procedures aside, if it's an actual recess and not "pro forma," what would your challenge be to Cordray getting the CFPB seat? Pretend Obama's not a "criminal," for once, and he was doing what every other President has done. Is the inherent problem the appointment?
 
The GOP is on record saying that they're fine with appointing him, but they want checks and balances on the office's authority. I don't know that he's the most popular guy in their book, and I'm sure some would prefer to block him, but I haven't read any serious issues with the confirmation itself.
 
The only thing I've read on him is that he is a big supporter and is intertwined with the hooligans who storm bank offices and harass bank execs (and their children) at their homes.

Sounds like just the objective type we need to write up stacks of new government regulation and fundamental change out of thin air.
rolleyes.gif


This country is so ******. Even if Obama does lose next November, it's going to take years to clean up his legislative mess, get rid of his ridiculous new agencies and cleanse the government of the radicals he has appointed to various positions of power.
 
Bronco
if you get one honest answer to your question;
"Please tell me that you can see the difference here
I will be shocked.
 
Sure, I see the difference. Obama shouldn't have done it because of the three day rule following the "not actually in session but still in session pro forma" ******** with which Congress likes to stagnate progress.

But my question is if Cordray actually got the appointment through a "normal" recess appointment, with no chance of filibuster or other Senate appointment "semi-rules that aren't actually federal statutes," what would the problem be?

If your answer is none, then why the faux outrage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top