Originally Posted by ijusluvit

it's a presidential act, by any name, subject to judicial review.

Obama declaring himself "ruler for life" would also be a "presidential act" and would also be against our constitution. I'm willing to bet you would argue that point with me also.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Obama declaring himself "ruler for life" would also be a "presidential act" and would also be against our constitution. I'm willing to bet you would argue that point with me also.

time for silly stuff I guess

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

time for silly stuff I guess

It's only "silly" because I finally found something that Obama could do that even you would find outrageous.

He's doing things that are pretty close to despotic right now. It's just that next step that worries you, it seems.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

It's only "silly" because I finally found something that Obama could do that even you would find outrageous.

He's doing things that are pretty close to despotic right now. It's just that next step that worries you, it seems.

"Despotic"!!! I thought you were being silly before.
Objective criticism of the President's last year says he is still trying too hard to compromise with an intransigent congressional bloc. The Cordray appointment was a small effort to step out of the Executive straitjacket and get something done. As I said above, there were risks, but strong rationale to act because of the sham sessions, and the legal standing of the new bureau.
The only remaining folks who might still call Lincoln, FDR & LBJ despots for the ways they forced change are a tiny fringe of wilderness militiamen. You've got to be at least that far out if you judge Obama's baby step similarly. Come on back to reality!

As we get closer to the November election, and as Obama's polling lead increases over every potential R candidate, the sillier the threads and comments here will become. It's already started.

By reading some of the (obviously) con postings here, you'd have thought Obama has gone to referring to himself as "The Decider" or something.

Or maybe telling our enemies to "bring it on". You know, something so absurd as to be practically treasonous.

Originally Posted by coralway

As we get closer to the November election, and as Obama's polling lead increases over every potential R candidate, the sillier the threads and comments here will become. It's already started.

By reading some of the (obviously) con postings here, you'd have thought Obama has gone to referring to himself as "The Decider" or something.

Or maybe telling our enemies to "bring it on". You know, something so absurd as to be practically treasonous.

Not sure how you arrive at how "cons" as you refer to them are thinking.

I just want to remind you of two things..one I have posted here and you folks just ignore...

""The two Democrats that President Barack Obama appointed to the National Labor Relations Board during what he considered a congressional “recess” are not on the White House’s official list of Obama’s appointments and nominations for various positions.

Obama referred his two Democratic nominees, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, to the Senate on Dec. 15. The Senate adjourned for the year – but did not go into an official recess — on the following day."

"WhiteHouse.gov tracks the status of all of Obama’s appointments and nominations. Block and Griffin do not appear on that list — a sign that the administration rushed the recess appointments through too quickly for the Senate to even consider them"

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/de...-nominee-list/


Thus this fact certainly takes away from your premise that it was a necessary and needed appointment...he never presented them


NEXT, I want to remind you when you speak of polls that the Republican party is now in the process of a primary and if you know anything at all about politics you will know that during that time will be the lowest polling because you are beating each other up. Example....during the Clinton/ Obama polls which began with Mc Cain well behind.....well, if you check right after the debates and as the nomination was cinched....McCain and Obama were basically in a dead heat !

ijusluvit - i know that this is a runing thing between you and richielion, but i had to pop in here where you post;

[QUOTE=ijusluvit;437614
Objective criticism of the President's last year says he is still trying too hard to compromise with an intransigent congressional bloc. [/QUOTE]

who is it that has offered 'objective criticism' indicating that the pres is trying to compromise? EVERY time i see him yammering in front of ANYONE who will lisiten he is whining that the republicans refuse to do it HIS way! that is not compromise in MY book!

"McCain and Obama were basically in a dead heat !" according to one poster but then, if I remember 2008 correctly, Obama got 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173, popular vote was also at about 53% for Obama and 47% for McCain. So much for your dead heat!

There will be again at least 90% of the black vote going to Obama, most of the Hispanic vote, most of the youth vote, most of the post-graduate college vote, and most union votes going to Obama. Looks as though it will be over 53% this time, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by buggyone

"McCain and Obama were basically in a dead heat !" according to one poster but then, if I remember 2008 correctly, Obama got 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173, popular vote was also at about 53% for Obama and 47% for McCain. So much for your dead heat!

There will be again at least 90% of the black vote going to Obama, most of the Hispanic vote, most of the youth vote, most of the post-graduate college vote, and most union votes going to Obama. Looks as though it will be over 53% this time, doesn't it?

THIS statement is what I was responding to...

"As we get closer to the November election, and as Obama's polling lead increases over every potential R candidate, the sillier the threads and comments here will become. It's already started.

Point being it is expected that this will happen at this time....when there are only TWO....the President and another candidate it will change...perhaps you are correct....who knows...MY POINT WAS ....polls today versus the President have no value and I showed that in the McCain example.

Not sure what you are trying to say except to spin it someway.

I won't get into a debate on whether appointments such as made by President Obama have been done before. Of course they have, by President Bush and others before him. If there wasn't precedent and if such action wasn't expected, why did the Senate choose not to go into recess, but rather choose some other procedural sham to say they were in session when in fact they were home, vacationing, fund raising, or anywhere but in Washington, DC?

But another consideration of why the POTUS made these appointments now was the law that would have essentially disbanded both the Federal Labor Relations Board as well as the Consumer Protection Agency if they continued for even a short time more with no appointed executive in charge of the agencies. Let's not forget that might have been a key reason for the appointments now.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I won't get into a debate on whether appointments such as made by President Obama have been done before. Of course they have, by President Bush and others before him. If there wasn't precedent and if such action wasn't expected, why did the Senate choose not to go into recess, but rather choose some other procedural sham to say they were in session when in fact they were home, vacationing, fund raising, or anywhere but in Washington, DC?

But another consideration of why the POTUS made these appointments now was the law that would have essentially disbanded both the Federal Labor Relations Board as well as the Consumer Protection Agency if they continued for even a short time more with no appointed executive in charge of the agencies. Let's not forget that might have been a key reason for the appointments now.

This is by far the silliest and most non-informative post I've read from you in ages. You misrepresent what happened and try to pawn it off as business as usual. With some here I understand the confusion, but I thought you much more informed and intelligent for that. I may have been mistaken.

VK,very informative post. Facts are sometimes tough to deal with.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

This is by far the silliest and most non-informative post I've read from you in ages. You misrepresent what happened and try to pawn it off as business as usual. With some here I understand the confusion, but I thought you much more informed and intelligent for that. I may have been mistaken.

Richie, why is it that virtually every post that disagrees with your viewpoint requires you to question the judgement, understanding, and/or intelligence of the poster?

There are posts on this forum that discuss the meat and potatoes of serious issues such as foreign policy, healthcare reform, abortion, loss of freedom...but regarding this thread: Who cares how "presidential" the guy in the White House "acts"? Heck, who even knows what that means? Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of our current president have not come even close to being presidential IMHO.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Richie, why is it that virtually every post that disagrees with your viewpoint requires you to question the judgement, understanding, and/or intelligence of the poster?

I don't have a problem with people's opinions, but they don't have a right to their own facts.

VK's post was factually inaccurate. Does that explain it enough for you?