And this is what happens when an entire party’s Senate representation decides to try to play weepy obstructionism games to an unprecedented level–someone with a set of balls of their own comes and kicks theirs inside out.
Unlike the typical Democrat, Obama seems to finally have become willing to use whatever procedural bullshit is necessary to overcome the onslaught of pussy-ass Republican procedural bullshit instead of wringing his hands and complaining uselessly. And I fucking applaud him for it. And frankly, I hope the senate Dems take a lesson from this and escalate on the next Republican president exactly as much as the Republicans have procedurally escalated on Obama.
No problem. While you lament the evil president, I will equally lament the idiot senators who deemed it appropriate to play recess games in order to prevent an Agency from functioning.
It would be one thing if they had a principled stand against a particular person heading the Agency because they thought he would not be good for America. However, they do not have a problem with a particular person heading the Agency. They want to circumvent a law creating the Agency that was passed by both Houses. This is what is sad and pathetic on their part.
Huh? Why would it? I’ve laid out the specific problems I have with his move, what the heck does that have to do with the Birther issue. One has nothing to do with the other, But to satisfy your curiosity, no, I am not a Birther.
Magellan, if you aren’t a birther, why do you use their terminology? Is it that you blankly parrot right-wing stuff you hear on the biased news-sources you use?
In your opinion, is someone who is less evil than someone else incompetent?
The Dems didn’t blast everything Bush did because they had a shred of dignity left. The Republicans dignity stores were depleted when Obama took over.
So you felt that instead of making your valuable (honestly, I generally think your opinion on legal matters is valuable) contribution to this thread and leaving it at that, you had to incorporate a nonsense partisan dig first?
I guess that’s true. Although, I like to think it’s the result of Dems mostly not having the Alternate History of America™ that the Republicans now enjoy.
It’s easier to make simple, easy to remember arguments for low-information voters when you don’t have to base them on reality.
Well, there are online dictionaries. BUt what I mean is that the argument can be made that Obama, through moves like this (as opposed to normal recess appointments) and his infatuation with appointing czars, that he is usurping power that has historically been shared more with the congress.
Lobohan, I have no recollection of hearing that phrase, either by Birthers or anyone else. I thought I was being novel, actually. I spend no time reading what Birthers have to say.
Why would I want to read up ion what they have to say. Also, even if he is usurping power, what does that have to do with the birth certificate issue? I don’t see the connection.
The argument can be made in the same sense that an argument can be made that the moon is made of cheese.
By the same token, anyone who thinks Obama is “infatuated” with appointing czars is wrong. Obama has appointed a bunch of officials to handle certain policy topics. None of them have any power beyond those already available to their senior cabinet officers, and most of them have no power at all - their positions are advisory.
Summary table - Number of czars per administration
George W. Bush 2001–2009 33 49 28
Barack Obama 2009– 38 42 33
The columns are “number of czar titles”, “number of appointees”, and “Appointees not confirmed by Congress”.
For recess appointments we have: “According to the Congressional Research Service, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments.” Obviously that can go up to 32 now.
As for the term “usurper-in-chief”, good on you for not frequenting any right-wing blogs or message boards, or you would surely not feel it was an original expression. A google search will quickly elucidate how popular it is amongst birthers and Tea Partiers in general.
Well, “usurper” is a bit grandiose, don’t you think? He’s simply using a legal technicality in the same way lawyers do on a daily basis. Its not like he sent squads of US Marshals to clap the Republicans in irons. Which would be wrong. As well as illegal. We can check with Bricker on the legality part, but I think I’m on pretty solid ground there.