Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Semantics, round and round the dumbfucks go.
Is Congress even in recess?
Clearly Barney Frank and others in congress missed it. Had they done their jobs it could have been avoided. We have everything we need to prosper. What we don't need are more inept agencies to supposedly do what others could have done without their creation.
You never quite answered what they missed. Furthermore, you still haven't given me any numbers. The only reason why the CFPB would be "inept" is further stunts like the ones pulled by the GOP.
He can only make the appointments IF both Houses go in recess. Since one House can NOT go in recess without the other agreeing he would be violating the law if he claims a short couples days with one house out is a recess.
But then you turds don't care what laws he breaks do you?
Congress and the Senate have division of duties. A committee exists for this purpose you moron. They refuse to move the nominations to the floor for a vote. Not because they do not have time and not because they are busy with something else, as you WELL know but because they are afraid they do not have the votes to prevent the appointments.
Even the argument that the Republicans are forcing a block vote is irrelevant, it is simple if the one guy is so bad, move to a vote and vote the block DOWN. Duty done, back in the President's lap. They refuse to do that. That is dereliction of duty.
No they do not. They are REQUIRED to consent or refuse by VOTE, not by simply refusing to do their sworn duty. The President Nominated someone, now Congress must either approve or disapprove of his choice. The Constitution does not say Congress can just not do its sworn duty and in fact allows the President to appoint between congressional sessions for that purpose.
They do not have that authority. If they disagree with his nominees the power they have is to vote them down, not refuse to vote on them. Last I checked there is NOT a majority of republicans so this should be no problem, unless in fact democrats intend to vote for them.
The problem is not people nominated you boob, read the article, Congress refuses to VOTE on them, guess who makes THAT decision?
January 2012:
He can only make the appointments IF both Houses go in recess. Since one House can NOT go in recess without the other agreeing he would be violating the law if he claims a short couples days with one house out is a recess.
But then you turds don't care what laws he breaks do you?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AIaakO9YDw]Laverne & Shirley Theme - YouTube[/ame]
April 2008:
Congress and the Senate have division of duties. A committee exists for this purpose you moron. They refuse to move the nominations to the floor for a vote. Not because they do not have time and not because they are busy with something else, as you WELL know but because they are afraid they do not have the votes to prevent the appointments.
Even the argument that the Republicans are forcing a block vote is irrelevant, it is simple if the one guy is so bad, move to a vote and vote the block DOWN. Duty done, back in the President's lap. They refuse to do that. That is dereliction of duty.
They do not have that authority. If they disagree with his nominees the power they have is to vote them down, not refuse to vote on them. Last I checked there is NOT a majority of republicans so this should be no problem, unless in fact democrats intend to vote for them.
The problem is not people nominated you boob, read the article, Congress refuses to VOTE on them, guess who makes THAT decision?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Simply put, had they done the jobs they were elected to do a new agency wouldn't even be in the discussion.
January 2012:
He can only make the appointments IF both Houses go in recess. Since one House can NOT go in recess without the other agreeing he would be violating the law if he claims a short couples days with one house out is a recess.
But then you turds don't care what laws he breaks do you?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AIaakO9YDw]Laverne & Shirley Theme - YouTube[/ame]
April 2008:
The problem is not people nominated you boob, read the article, Congress refuses to VOTE on them, guess who makes THAT decision?
Recess Appointments are now a good thing. Oh yea,hop onboard that "Hope & Change" train!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Simply put, had they done the jobs they were elected to do a new agency wouldn't even be in the discussion.
You think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the problem that caused the financial crisis. Swing and a miss.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Simply put, had they done the jobs they were elected to do a new agency wouldn't even be in the discussion.
You think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the big problem from the financial crisis? Not quite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Simply put, had they done the jobs they were elected to do a new agency wouldn't even be in the discussion.
You think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the big problem from the financial crisis? Not quite.
None of which changes the LAW. The President can NOT make recess appointments UNLESS Congress is in RECESS. The Senate can not go in recess unless the House agrees to go in recess.
If Obama appoints someone when Congress is NOT in recess he has violated the Constitution and the LAW. Pretty simple concept.
Bush never made an illegal appointment. You people do not care what laws Obama violates.
You ARE that stupid. Let me spell it out to you AGAIN. Bush only appointed people that the Senate refused to allow a vote on. There was no check and balance, the democrats refused to allow any vote at all.
And I suggest you reread your Constitution and the LAWS of the land, The President most definately has the power and the RIGHT to appoint people during recess.
Every President does and as far as I know every President has done SO.
Let me guess your under 30 and a product of our enlightened liberally destroyed public school system?
This seems to be the only way to keep Bush from ushering more harmful appointments who would never make through a Senate hearing anyhow.
Any president that uses the recess to circumvent Constitutional law should be slapped, but that God we have some Senators willing to put an end to this practice.
Are you stupid? It is Constitutional to make the appointments. Another moron that can not read nor comprehend the document that establishes our Government at the Federal level.
And remember these words when the Senate is controlled by Republicans and they finally do to a Democrat what the Democrats have done to this President.
I don't need to, your playing games with my intent doesn't change the fact that such appointments are LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL and have been done through out our Nations History. NOR does it change the fact the Democrats obstructed the process by refusing a yes no vote.
Last I checked " as far as I know" leaves room for me to be wrong, but do explain it another way.
The Democrats blocked all votes on the people that Bush eventually used recess appointments for. They had a lot more than 60 to 90 days to vte, they knew they would lose said vote so blocked by filibuster. It takes a simple majority to approve an appointment but it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster.. The Democrats were abusing their power and paid for it.
I like how you changed your post after I quoted it and it doesn't even say you edited it.
Neat trick
None of which changes the LAW. The President can NOT make recess appointments UNLESS Congress is in RECESS. The Senate can not go in recess unless the House agrees to go in recess.
If Obama appoints someone when Congress is NOT in recess he has violated the Constitution and the LAW. Pretty simple concept.
Bush never made an illegal appointment. You people do not care what laws Obama violates.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDVhSP5sUoY]BACK TO THE FUTURE THEME - YouTube[/ame]
December 2007:
RetiredGySgt, meet RetiredGySgt:
You ARE that stupid. Let me spell it out to you AGAIN. Bush only appointed people that the Senate refused to allow a vote on. There was no check and balance, the democrats refused to allow any vote at all.
And I suggest you reread your Constitution and the LAWS of the land, The President most definately has the power and the RIGHT to appoint people during recess.
Every President does and as far as I know every President has done SO.
Let me guess your under 30 and a product of our enlightened liberally destroyed public school system?
I don't need to, your playing games with my intent doesn't change the fact that such appointments are LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL and have been done through out our Nations History. NOR does it change the fact the Democrats obstructed the process by refusing a yes no vote.
Last I checked " as far as I know" leaves room for me to be wrong, but do explain it another way.
The Democrats blocked all votes on the people that Bush eventually used recess appointments for. They had a lot more than 60 to 90 days to vte, they knew they would lose said vote so blocked by filibuster. It takes a simple majority to approve an appointment but it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster.. The Democrats were abusing their power and paid for it.
I like how you changed your post after I quoted it and it doesn't even say you edited it.
Neat trick
I edited my post a minute or two after I posted it. While you were making your post responding to my old one, the new one already existed.
Got caught ehh? Remind us again how it is perfectly ok for Obama to violate the Constitution and the law and you are perfectly fine with that.
You think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the problem that caused the financial crisis. Swing and a miss.
You think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the big problem from the financial crisis? Not quite.
500 million dollars a year is what I've heard this agency will cost to operate.
Not expensive at all if you don't consider all the other bullshit programs we waste money on....right?
