Name 'em.
Wait, I’m sorry. That was uncalled for.
I apologize to all simpletons for comparing them to this idiot.
They don’t. You’re just an idiot. There’s no sequence of logic or reasoning that will get you to think about this in a reasonable fashion. There’s utterly no reason to debate you. So I’ll just state fact. Democrats don’t obstruct. Whatever reality you think you see, fit that with the fact that Democrats don’t obstruct. That will be the truth. What you have swimming in your empty skull is not reality, its a gelatinous goo of stupid. 
You’re supposed to wait until the weasel is in the trap.
Nevertheless I’m not getting an actual Objectivist vibe from D’Anconia – more of a Vulgar Libertarian vibe, a rather less-intellectual thing.
Agreed, but then that can be said about most of Rand’s fanboys.
Holy fuck D’anconia, you are all over the freaking place here. Stay focused. Is this thread about the SDSAB? No, wait, that’s not it. Uh, uh, it’s about BrainGlutton, right? Yeah, that must be…no, wait, that’s not it either. It’s about Keystone XL. Surely tha…shit, that’s not it either.
Oh, right, right, it was about your weakass OP about “democrat” obstructionism. Oh, I get it now. You’re all over the place because you have absolutely zero cred in your original post. So, in typical right wingnut fashion, you just go frothing at the mouth about random nonsensical shit that is only real inside your little reptilian brain.
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, it’s makes you easier to identify. We just have to look for the crazy shouting frothing at the mouth guy with the grape Kool-Aid stained lips.
I played keys for Rand’s Fanboys back in the day.
('Course, eventually I realized I was just inherently better than the rest of the band and formed my own group, Gulch and the Galtones. We never had many gigs, because the commies and squishes and collectivists conspire to keep the entrepreneur from success in this feminized society. Now I mostly play in Mulligan’s Valley. Which is what I call my basement.)
Because, as the Federal Judge noted in his ruling, once something is done, it’s much harder to undo.
Democratic.
It’s the Democratic Party.
Officially.
Since 1844.
You really don’t pay attention to the world around you.
Unconstitutional recess appointments, for one. You can google the rest.
Covered in post #120 above.
I’ll take Unintential Irony for $500, Alex.
Ironic quote of the…
day?
week?
month?
unspecified time period of your own choosing?
I agree that the recess appointment issue is fairly described as an instance of the Supreme Court ruling 9-0 “against Obama.”
But there haven’t been too many others. As the Politifact article points out, it’s not easy to find cases that are fairly described as “overruling Obama.”
Take, for example, Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, a pair of cases that dealt with warrantless searches of a cell-phone incident to arrest. It was, indeed, a 9-0 case, with the Court holding that the traditional rule allowing an automatic search of a person’s belongings when they’re arrested doesn’t extend to cell phones; modern cell phones are different than other objects and the vast amount of material they can contain triggers privacy concerns that simply don’t exist with other objects.
But it’s not clear to me that it’s fair to call the contrary position an “Obama” position. Brima Wurie’s phone was searched by officers of the Boston Police Department in 2007. David Riley’s arrest was at the hands of San Diego police in 2009; they searched his phone and triggered the Fourth Amendment question that made it to the Supreme Court. It’s true that the Obama administration, in the person of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr., filed an amicus brief, arguing that the Court should find the searches lawful. But that’s a somewhat thin reed to support the claim that the Court “overruled” Obama. The United States wasn’t a party to the cases.
So I’d like to hear the names of a couple more of the cases you’re relying on.
Sarcasm? :smack:
Shouldn’t these brain droppings be in an ATMB thread, that way they would be addressed (and probably laughed at) by the powers that be?
No, it wasn’t. The Tampa Bay Times is described as “an unusually liberal newspaper.” Try again.
If the Republican’s can get immigration legislation through that restricts the president’s power regarding how immigration law is implemented, then they should go ahead and do that. However putting a gun to the head of DHS, and saying sign this or else, is not the way to do it. And if they pull the trigger and shoot the hostage, it’s not going to be very convincing to the American people when they say its the president’s fault for not giving into their demands, any more than the state department is more to blame than ISIS for the death of Kayla Mueller because they wouldn’t pay the ransom.
Wrong. Here is the quote:
“In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a “usually liberal” newspaper.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay_Times
So another newspaper once referred to them as a “usually liberal newspaper”, and this is, to you, grounds to dismiss everything ever reported by them? Really? That’s your standard? You could have at least gotten the quote right if such a thing is so important to you.
Really weak sauce here. Do you have any issues with the actual facts in that article, or are you just satisfied that someone once said that they were usually liberal so therefore you can safely ignore everything they’ve ever published? Does that apply to weather reports and sports scores they report too?