Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kim Jong-Il, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini.............and Obama wow!
The best part of the Obama - Mussolini part of your post is that there are many pictures of Obama that show his upward jutting chin that resemble many pictures of Mussolini.
Can any of you progs refute the fact that Obama did say these words in defense of avoiding the Constitution to make those appointments last week?
“When Congress refuses to act — and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk — then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”
"do what I can without them" implies within the framework of the powers granted to him by the constitution.
Since you failed to read the link which is new I will repeat the words of Obama in defense of his actions when he tried to state why he did what he did because the Senate wouldn't work with him.
I’ll work within the system. But if they won’t move, then…I will dictate where we’re going.”
Do you have some of your outstanding left leaning proof that he did not say those words? Lets see your version.
Is that what Obama said or is that Beck paraphrasing what Obama said?
“That’s inexcusable,” Obama says in the remarks. “And I refuse to take `No’ for an answer. I’ve said before that I will continue to look for every opportunity to work with Congress to move this country forward. But when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”
I have to say yes since he says if Congress won't give him what he wants he will have to take us there by executive decisions. He says he is and yet many people refuse to believe him. Those appointments last week were against what the Constitution says so I guess he may well be either setting up an imperial presidency or just becoming a dictator. Lets see if we have an election this fall.
Congress can file suit if they disagree with it. Feel free to ask the court system to intervene.
As long as there is a court system, then congress has a check of executive power.
This is how the system is supposed to work.
Of course, it could have been easier if the Senate had simply not filibustered and allowed the 53 vote majority of the Senate confirm the appointment.
But instead, the Republican congress is hard keeping Beck in business with asinine, tin foil hat arguments.
I just don't see any of this as you do. You talk about the Republican Congress right after talking about a 51 plus two independents majority of the Senate. You confuse me with that kind of talk. I guess you failed to read my last link from CBS where they mentioned that the Republicans claim they were willing along to go along with that appointment to the yet to be formed bureaucracy if the Dems would try to make some changes in the law they passed a couple of years ago when the Congress was Democrat.
Your reference to tin foil hat arguments makes me wonder where you are standing in reference to this one. Surely you know that the GOP is acting just like Reid and group did before they took over. No? Well they are doing exactly what Dirty Harry did back in the mid-two thousands.
"When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them. I have an obligation to act on behalf of the American people,"
Spoken like the true Leader he is, I was proud of him for making that statement. He is correct, he does have an obligation to do everything within his power to help the People of this Nation.
Just another reason to back him in November
Roy, I get the feeling this duplicated thread by you is not working out any better fo you than it did last time
I just don't see any of this as you do. You talk about the Republican Congress right after talking about a 51 plus two independents majority of the Senate. You confuse me with that kind of talk. I guess you failed to read my last link from CBS where they mentioned that the Republicans claim they were willing along to go along with that appointment to the yet to be formed bureaucracy if the Dems would try to make some changes in the law they passed a couple of years ago when the Congress was Democrat.
Your reference to tin foil hat arguments makes me wonder where you are standing in reference to this one. Surely you know that the GOP is acting just like Reid and group did before they took over. No? Well they are doing exactly what Dirty Harry did back in the mid-two thousands.
Here is your problem.
You are arguing about abuse of procedural power, at the same time that Republicans are exercising an abuse of Senate procedural power.
There was no reason to try and block this nomination.
And, as I said, if Republicans have a problem with it, they have the courts to turn to. Of course, its been speculated that because this would make it very public, and there was no real reason to block this mans nomination, that it would make Republicans in congress look bad. But hey, if the truth is on your side, file suit.
A minority of congressmen, using a procedural blocking measure that wasn't being practiced as it was originally intended by the founders they so often speak of, decided to block a perfectly competent and good nomination to a public office.
Now, the Argument has been made that Republicans were trying to back door end a government agency. Why should they try and back door it, if you disagree with it, tell everyone right up front. Don't use a procedure outside of its intended purpose and mechanisms to block it.
So the President pushed his executive power, saying that since congress wasn't in secession, he can fill a position without approval because it was needed for the working of government.
And you disagree with the last part of it. The whole thing is ridiculous.
Its like you have eaten the first half of a crap sandwich, and you suddenly decided that you don't oppose the further eating of poo, but because it didn't have ketchup on the rest, you didn't want anymore.
Spoken like the true Leader he is, I was proud of him for making that statement. He is correct, he does have an obligation to do everything within his power to help the People of this Nation.
Just another reason to back him in November
Roy, I get the feeling this duplicated thread by you is not working out any better fo you than it did last time
No, he has a duty to do everything within his constitutional authority and power, to help the people of this nation.
Problem beyond him being unconstitutional and a subversive OF said document is that he has contempt for this constitution, thinking it "flawed." Hence, he ran partly on "fundamental transformation" without calling for a Con-Con. Nope, that would have given himself away. Besides, he's a narcissist that feels himself as powerful as to circumvent any law and just do it.
Hence, there is legal and moral authority to handcuff him right now and he knows it. Therefore, Communist Psychopolitics requires him to demoralize and weaken our military since they, alone could handcuff fifty that frequent the white house, right now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wow!
