This is Tyranny

[Boogie man]

41 Senate Republicans wrote Obama this week urging him not to use a recess appointment for Becker, a former top lawyer with Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, whose nomination was rejected by the Senate last month, 52-43.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also wrote Obama on behalf of 20 business groups that opposed Becker's nomination and decried the recess appointment.

"This recess appointment disregards the Senate's bipartisan rejection of Craig Becker's nomination to the NLRB," Chamber Vice President Randel Johnson said in a written statement.

"Overriding the will of the Senate and providing this special interest payback contradicts the president's claim to change the tone in Washington," he said. "The business community should be on red alert for radical changes that could significantly impair the ability of America's job creators to compete."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/obama-makes-recess-appointments-vacant-administration-posts/

[Boogie man]

The US Senate in a bipartisan vote rejected Baker. Obama appoints him anyway. Now I want one of you moonbats to tell me that this isn't tryanny and as un-American as it gets.

[MintJulep]

The SEIU thug made it through. No surprise. It seems like the Whitehouse is filled with nothing but crooks, thugs and Communists these days.

[Boogie man]

The SEIU thug made it through. No surprise. It seems like the Whitehouse is filled with nothing but crooks, thugs and Communists these days.

What is insane is this guy was rejected with a bipartisan vote in the US Senate. I know all Presidents appoint people during recesses, but this guy was rejected constitutionally. No one can defend this.

[MintJulep]

And anyone who questions it is a racist. You know the drill of the Despot in office.

The day that office is emptied and fumigated it will be one glorious, glorious day in this country! I wonder if Carter was despised this much?

[Boogie man]

And anyone who questions it is a racist. You know the drill of the Despot in office.

The day that office is emptied and fumigated it will be one glorious, glorious day in this country! I wonder if Carter was despised this much?

Nope. Carter was timid. This thug is arrogant and nasty.

[mwillman]

HaHaHa

Bush did 15 recess appointments at the same time in his presidency even though he only had 5 of his appointments held up unlike President Obama who has had a to face unprecedented obstruction from republicans.

This is just another right wing attempt to stop the government from being able to do its job.

You people are a joke.

[mrmeangenes]

Recess appointments !

Who ever heard of such a thing ??

Wait one: Didn't I spend a lot of time a couple of years ago defending Bush when he made a recess appointment or two ??

Ah, but that was then - him being a Republican and all (Bless his heart !)-and this is NOW.

[slowhand]

41 Senate Republicans wrote Obama this week urging him not to use a recess appointment for Becker, a former top lawyer with Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, whose nomination was rejected by the Senate last month, 52-43.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also wrote Obama on behalf of 20 business groups that opposed Becker's nomination and decried the recess appointment.

"This recess appointment disregards the Senate's bipartisan rejection of Craig Becker's nomination to the NLRB," Chamber Vice President Randel Johnson said in a written statement.

"Overriding the will of the Senate and providing this special interest payback contradicts the president's claim to change the tone in Washington," he said. "The business community should be on red alert for radical changes that could significantly impair the ability of America's job creators to compete."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/obama-makes-recess-appointments-vacant-administration-posts/


As of October 31, 2008, President Bush had made 171 recess appointments.
President William J. Clinton, in comparison, made a total of 139 recess appointments
during the course of his presidency. Of President Bush’s 171 recess appointments,
99 were to full-time positions, and the remaining 72 were to part-time positions.


Table 1


provides the number of recess appointments in each of these categories for


each year of the Bush presidency. In general, the top leadership positions in the
federal government are full-time positions to which appointments are made through
the advice and consent process. For example, among the full-time offices to which
President Bush made recess appointments, five were deputy secretary positions and
two were federal appeals court judgeships. Part-time positions can also be vested
with statutory policy-making authority that can have broad impact. The members of
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, who received recess
appointments from President Bush, could be considered among the positions in this
category.


http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33310.pdf


There..Feel better now?

[Boogie man]

HaHaHa

Bush did 15 recess appointments at the same time in his presidency even though he only had 5 of his appointments held up unlike President Obama who has had a to face unprecedented obstruction from republicans.

This is just another right wing attempt to stop the government from being able to do its job.

You people are a joke.

You entirely missed the point. The point is not the recess appointment. Why don't you read it again and then read the thread so you know what the fuck we're talking about.

[Boogie man]

Recess appointments !

Who ever heard of such a thing ??

Wait one: Didn't I spend a lot of time a couple of years ago defending Bush when he made a recess appointment or two ??

Ah, but that was then - him being a Republican and all (Bless his heart !)-and this is NOW.

You guys really do have a comprehension problem. No wonder you're so easily fooled.

The point is that he was rejected by the US senate in a bipartisan vote. Obama just went around the US Constitutional process.

[Boogie man]

There..Feel better now?

Unbelievable. Three in a row and every one of you missed the point. Talk about thick.

Once more for you moonbats. The point is he was turned down by the US Senate in a bipartisan vote. He was rejected in a constitutional process. Over. Done. Finished. He was rejected by our elected representatives in the US Senate.

That's the point. Man, what dumb shits.

[slowhand]

You guys really do have a comprehension problem. No wonder you're so easily fooled.

The point is that he was rejected by the US senate in a bipartisan vote. Obama just went around the US Constitutional process.

Hey..Dont sweat it man..Its just business..Honest to God!! :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

http://i43.tinypic.com/160rmlv.jpg

[Boogie man]

Hey..Dont sweat it man..Its business..Honest to God!! :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

http://i43.tinypic.com/160rmlv.jpg

You're gutless. You don't have enough integrity to admit this is wrong.

[slowhand]

You're gutless. You don't have enough integrity to admit this is wrong.

You first..Say hello to Alberto

[Boogie man]

You first..Say hello to Alberto

This thread is not about him. This thread is about Obama ignoring the constitutional process. You're gutless.

[slowhand]

This thread is not about him. This thread is about Obama ignoring the constitutional process. You're gutless.

Interesting!..Maybe Obama should invite Alberto to the Whitehouse for a beer

[Boogie man]

Interesting!..Maybe Obama should invite Alberto to the Whitehouse for a beer

You really are pitiful. Bootlicker.

[Smurf-Herder]

It's impossible to argue with them. They're starving for what you fear.

The Scorpion and the Frog

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Self destruction - "Its my Nature", said the Scorpion...

[Boogie man]

That's true. This is their nature. They're Marxists. They're not Americans.

[slowhand]

That's true. This is their nature. They're Marxists. They're not Americans.

Did you check slowhand's birth certificate?

http://i39.tinypic.com/2d76mv6.jpg

[Libertarian94]

Did you check slowhand's birth certificate?

http://i39.tinypic.com/2d76mv6.jpg


Do you do anything else other then strawman fallacies?:disbelief:

[Boogie man]

I'm sure that picture means something to you. Explain it to me.

[slowhand]

Do you do anything else other then strawman fallacies?:disbelief:

Yeah..Stick around..I got a million of them..You call them strawman fallacies, I call them cooincidental inuendos

[slowhand]

I'm sure that picture means something to you. Explain it to me.

*Hint* ...............

"Obama couldn't sell watermelons if a state trooper flagged down traffic"

[Libertarian94]

Yeah..Stick around..I got a million of them..You call them strawman fallacies, I call them cooincidental inuendos

Which is worse???

A: http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/20090813/obama-hitler-larouche.jpg
or
B:http://www.manlyrash.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/bush_hitler.jpg


A: http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Poster_Che_Chump.gif
or
B: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lpGxUy-ywAE/Sw_5CEurajI/AAAAAAAAAGk/HaVORmvetmM/s1600/BUSH%2BCHE%2BFINAL.jpg

[Smurf-Herder]

Which is worse???

A: http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Poster_Che_Chump.gif



:lmao2: I went to the URL on the Obama-Che image ..............

Nancy Pelosi to Join Borg Collective

http://thepeoplescube.com/Future/images/Pelosi_BorgQueen_250.jpg

After 94 years of leading the Democrat-majority Congress, Rep. Nancy Pelosi retires to take the position as manager of a multi-billion hive mind of the Borg Collective. "My previous existence as Madam Speaker, combined with cutting-edge plastic surgeries have fully prepared me for this dream job," said the Democrat Representative from San Francisco. "Ever since I was a little girl, all I really wanted in life was to become a biomechanical hive queen in a Borg campaign to assimilate Earth and force humans to appreciate the benefits of enhanced living as mindless drones controlled by collective consciousness."

Speaker of the House continued, "As soon as Walter Reed switches my vital-essence tubes and the architect's plans for my plastic surgeries from Congress to the Borg Collective, I shall be able to administer the collective consciousness of a billion people, who speak not with a billion voices, but with my voice, which is the point of the exercise.

The People's Cube
http://thepeoplescube.com/

[Boogie man]

*Hint* ...............

Yep, and Dan Rather said it. As usual, you are very confused.

[slowhand]

Yep, and Dan Rather said it. As usual, you are very confused.

Yes you are right..I am confused

I would think a great patriot like yourself..(according to you anyway)..would be sporting a signature quote from Ben Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson, or some great pillar of American society

But no..Instead you decide to chose a racist quote from a has-been journalist

Actually, I lied..Im not one iota confused

[John Galt]

You guys really do have a comprehension problem. No wonder you're so easily fooled.

The point is that he was rejected by the US senate in a bipartisan vote. Obama just went around the US Constitutional process.
The vote was 43-11 to appoint.

I'd say that was an overwhelming majority. I don't see your problem?

[Boogie man]

Yes you are right..I am confused

I would think a great patriot like yourself..(according to you anyway)..would be sporting a signature quote from Ben Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson, or some great pillar of American society

But no..Instead you decide to chose a racist quote from a has-been journalist

Actually, I lied..Im not one iota confused

He's YOUR journalist.

You still haven't addressed the point of the OP. The nominee was rejected by the US Senate in a bipartisan vote. Obama appoints him anyway.

Give us your opinion of that maneuver.

[mwillman]

He told the conservatives to fuck off.
I for one am happy to see that happen.

[slowhand]

He's YOUR journalist.

He is a bigot, and because of that, he will never be "MY" journalist

The only thing you like about him evidently, is his racist cliches..Congrats!

You still haven't addressed the point of the OP. The nominee was rejected by the US Senate in a bipartisan vote. Obama appoints him anyway.

Give us your opinion of that maneuver.

When you Republi-cants, decide to patrticipate in govt, rather than obstuct it, the political process will continue without you

If you keep doing what you're doing, you're gonna keep getting what you're getting

So much for your right wing theory, that Obama cant get anything done, even with the majority in his favor

Next case.......

[John Galt]

He is a bigot, and because of that, he will never be "MY" journalist

The only thing you like about him evidently, is his racist cliches..Congrats!



When you Republi-cants, decide to patrticipate in govt, rather than obstuct it, the political process will continue without you

If you keep doing what you're doing, you're gonna keep getting what you're getting

So much for your right wing theory, that Obama cant get anything done, even with the majority in his favor

Next case.......


Precisely...as I posted earlier...the vote was 43-11 in favor of the appointment...I don't see the problem?

Oh...are the republicans participating in govt. these days? I didn't get the memo.

[slowhand]

Precisely...as I posted earlier...the vote was 43-11 in favor of the appointment...I don't see the problem?

Oh...are the republicans participating in govt. these days? I didn't get the memo.

I got the memo..It says they're on strike....I didnt even know they got unionized?

[Smurf-Herder]

Precisely...as I posted earlier...the vote was 43-11 in favor of the appointment...I don't see the problem?

Oh...are the republicans participating in govt. these days? I didn't get the memo.

WTF are you guys talking about with 43-11?

The vote was 52-43 against appointing him.

[Citizen]

http://thepeoplescube.com/Future/images/Pelosi_BorgQueen_250.jpg


That doesn't even look photo shopped from the Star Trek: First Contact movie. :lmao2:

[Smurf-Herder]

That doesn't even look photo shopped from the Star Trek: First Contact movie. :lmao2:

Now that's what I call a really nasty face-lift. :D

[Boogie man]

He is a bigot, and because of that, he will never be "MY" journalist

The only thing you like about him evidently, is his racist cliches..Congrats!



When you Republi-cants, decide to patrticipate in govt, rather than obstuct it, the political process will continue without you

If you keep doing what you're doing, you're gonna keep getting what you're getting

So much for your right wing theory, that Obama cant get anything done, even with the majority in his favor

Next case.......

You still haven't commented on the topic. You're dishonest. Next case.

[Boogie man]

Precisely...as I posted earlier...the vote was 43-11 in favor of the appointment...I don't see the problem?

Oh...are the republicans participating in govt. these days? I didn't get the memo.

That is incorrect. Read the OP. He was rejected by the Senate in a bipartisan vote. Are you okay with that?

[Boogie man]

On a side note, I just watched Bill O'Reilly destroy Al Sharpton. He caught Sharpton in a lie.

[Citizen]

Now that's what I call a really nasty face-lift. :D
Seriously is it? I can't tell at all lolzzz!

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb184/endclintonismnow/Pelosi_Wicked_Queen60.jpg

[slowhand]

On a side note, I just watched Bill O'Reilly destroy Al Sharpton. He caught Sharpton in a lie.

Now there's a revelation

[John Galt]

That is incorrect. Read the OP. He was rejected by the Senate in a bipartisan vote. Are you okay with that?
I read the op, and it shows a 43-11 vote in favor of the appointment.

It's 2nd grade math.

[Boogie man]

I read the op, and it shows a 43-11 vote in favor of the appointment.

It's 2nd grade math.

It's moonbat math.

41 Senate Republicans wrote Obama this week urging him not to use a recess appointment for Becker, a former top lawyer with Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, whose nomination was rejected by the Senate last month, 52-43.

[John Galt]

It's moonbat math.

41 Senate Republicans wrote Obama this week urging him not to use a recess appointment for Becker, a former top lawyer with Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, whose nomination was rejected by the Senate last month, 52-43.
Good...now do the 2nd grade math, and you'll understand.


The reps. announced that they will not be participating in any voting. They're holding up every aspect of govt., while they 'squeal like pigs'(Maher).

How they vote doesn't interest anybody. Bipartisan is a theory that went out the door after Obama spent/wasted a year attempting it. He isn't stupid enough to waste any more time.


The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of appointment.


Next issue.

[Smurf-Herder]

I read the op, and it shows a 43-11 vote in favor of the appointment.

It's 2nd grade math.

Maybe it's 2nd grade math to you, but it looks like you're at a pre-school reading level.


"41 Senate Republicans wrote Obama this week urging him not to use a recess appointment for Becker, a former top lawyer with Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, whose nomination was rejected by the Senate last month, 52-43."

[Boogie man]

Good...now do the 2nd grade math, and you'll understand.


The reps. announced that they will not be participating in any voting. They're holding up every aspect of govt., while they 'squeal like pigs'(Maher).

How they vote doesn't interest anybody. Bipartisan is a theory that went out the door after Obama spent/wasted a year attempting it. He isn't stupid enough to waste any more time.


The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of appointment.


Next issue.

You're ignoring the simple fact that he has already been rejected by the US Senate. The very first sentence of the OP tells you what the vote was. How can you sit there and ignore the plain truth all of us can see? Simply amazing. You're dishonest.

[bairdi]

You're ignoring the simple fact that he has already been rejected by the US Senate. The very first sentence of the OP tells you what the vote was. How can you sit there and ignore the plain truth all of us can see? Simply amazing. You're dishonest.
The Senate never voted on his nomination and to say so is dishonest. The Senate voted on a procedural motion which amounted to a filibuster and effectively blocked any vote on Becker's nomination.

[Boogie man]

The Senate never voted on his nomination and to say so is dishonest. The Senate voted on a procedural motion which amounted to a filibuster and effectively blocked any vote on Becker's nomination.

You are a liar. He was rejected by a bipartisan vote in the senate or not? Damn, you guys are as dishonest as the day is long.

The Washington Post says the Senate rejected Baker and it was bipartisan. You're a liar.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/02/nlrb_nominee_craig_becker_fail.html

[bairdi]

You are a liar. He was rejected by a bipartisan vote in the senate or not? Damn, you guys are as dishonest as the day is long.

The Washington Post says the Senate rejected Baker and it was bipartisan. You're a liar.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/02/nlrb_nominee_craig_becker_fail.html
Go fuck yourself. Do you have the slightest idea what this sentence from the Post article means? There was never an up or down vote on his nomination.

"Senators voted 52 to 33 for end debate on Becker's nomination, but that was not enough to move to a vote."

[T-Cat]

You are a liar. He was rejected by a bipartisan vote in the senate or not? Damn, you guys are as dishonest as the day is long.

The Washington Post says the Senate rejected Baker and it was bipartisan. You're a liar.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/02/nlrb_nominee_craig_becker_fail.htmlApparently you can't even read your own source.

The nomination of Craig Becker, whom President Obama chose to serve on the National Labor Relations Board, died Tuesday after it failed a cloture vote in the Senate.

Senators voted 52 to 33 for end debate on Becker's nomination, but that was not enough to move to a vote. All of the chamber's Republicans in attendance and Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) voted against cloture.

bairdi is correct, the senate never voted on his actual nomination. They voted 52 - 33 in favor of ending the debate on his nomination. But a cloture vote requires 60 votes and that failed.

ahhh, bairdi beat me to it.

[bairdi]

Apparently you can't even read your own source.



bairdi is correct, the senate never voted on his actual nomination. They voted 52 - 33 in favor of ending the debate on his nomination. But a cloture vote requires 60 votes and that failed.

ahhh, bairdi beat me to it.
Of course he is wrong but don't look for him to ever admit it. That's what conservatives do, say something that is factually wrong and never ever admit to being wrong.

[T-Cat]

Of course he is wrong but don't look for him to ever admit it. That's what conservatives do, say something that is factually wrong and never ever admit to being wrong.That's what he gets for getting his information from part of the conservative run media, FoxNEWS. They falsely claimed that his nomination was rejected by the senate.

All 41 Senate Republicans wrote Obama this week urging him not to use a recess appointment for Becker, a former top lawyer with Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, whose nomination was rejected by the Senate last month, 52-43
They also got the number wrong, WaPo was correct, it was a 52-33 vote, not a 52-43 vote.

[slowhand]

Who's the "dishonest" one now bigotman?

[T-Cat]

Who's the "dishonest" one now bigotman?I'd say it was the guy who told other posters they were easily fooled, thick, dumb shits, and said they didn't know what they were talking about. :lmao2:

He also said:

You're gutless. You don't have enough integrity to admit this is wrong

[John Galt]

Hey...where'd everyone go? I should've known a Fox News piece was horsecrap.

But..going by the info in the OP....

The supposed vote was 52-43 against.

41 repubs. wrote a letter, so I'm assuming there were 41 rep. nay votes.


We know that repubs. are going to vote nay on every issue that comes before them....including any issues that address nominations.


Using 2nd grade math, by negating the republican votes, we get a simple subtraction problem...


52-41=11

43 senators supposedly voted to appoint...although we now see there was no actual vote.


In this fantasy news piece, the true vote was 43-11 in favor of appointment.

[T-Cat]

Hey...where'd everyone go? I should've known a Fox News piece was horsecrap.

But..going by the info in the OP....

The supposed vote was 52-43 against.

41 repubs. wrote a letter, so I'm assuming there were 41 rep. nay votes.


We know that repubs. are going to vote nay on every issue that comes before them....including any issues that address nominations.


Using 2nd grade math, by negating the republican votes, we get a simple subtraction problem...


52-41=11

43 senators supposedly voted to appoint...although we now see there was no actual vote.


In this fantasy news piece, the true vote was 43-11 in favor of appointment.John, the actual facts of the case are:


There was no vote to confirm Becker.
There was a cloture vote to end debate (break the filibuster) on his nomination so as to move to an up and down vote to confirm him.
The vote was 52-33 in favor of ending debate, with 52 Democrats voting yes and 31 Republicans and 2 Democrats voting no. But cloture proceedings require 60 votes and so it failed blocking the confirmation vote.

Besides getting their “facts” blatantly incorrect, Republicans are also guilty of a great deal of hypocrisy on the issue.

Bush made quite a few recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board who were very pro-business management lawyers such as Peter J. Hurtgen, Peter N. Kirsanow, Ronald E. Meisburg, William B. Cowen, and Michael J. Bartlett, the latter who was the director of Labor Law Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the groups now complaining about Becker and crying special interest payback. When the shoe is on the other foot…

Bush used various recess appointments to appoint people whose nominations had failed in the senate including Charles Pickering to the Federal Appeals Court and of course John Bolton as Representative to the United Nations.

[Boogie man]

Go fuck yourself. Do you have the slightest idea what this sentence from the Post article means? There was never an up or down vote on his nomination.

"Senators voted 52 to 33 for end debate on Becker's nomination, but that was not enough to move to a vote."

"They ended debate on Becker's nomination".

That means he was rejected. It never got past the debate process to even take an up or down vote. How damn dumb can one person be?

[John Galt]

"They ended debate on Becker's nomination".

That means he was rejected. It never got past the debate process to even take an up or down vote. How damn dumb can one person be?
All the more reason for Obama to do what he did.

The repubs. already admitted that they aren't going to comply with anything this year.

[Boogie man]

All the more reason for Obama to do what he did.

The repubs. already admitted that they aren't going to comply with anything this year.

Looks like a few democrats also voted to end debate.

All of your pals and your lies can't change the fact that the constitutional process stopped Becker and Obama ignored it. Appointing during a recess is one thing, but to appoint someone who has already been turned down and the debate ended is quite another.

Bootlickers.

[T-Cat]

"They ended debate on Becker's nomination".

That means he was rejected. It never got past the debate process to even take an up or down vote. How damn dumb can one person be?No it doesn’t mean he was rejected, the senate does not reject a nomination with a failed cloture vote. They simply didn’t have enough votes to end the debate on his nomination, it is technically still pending. The senate can only reject a nomination with a vote on the final question: “Will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?”. Such a vote has not taken place.

First you claimed Becker’s nomination was rejected by the senate 52-43. This is false, his nomination was blocked by a filibustered in the senate and the cloture motion failed 33-52.

Then you claimed it was bipartisan when only 2 out of 57 Democrats voted against cloture, while 51 voted for it and no Republicans voted for Yea to cloture. It was a typical highly partisan filibuster vote, had it been a simple up and down confirmation vote the senate would have confirmed him.

Bush did the same thing, making recess appointments for candidates whose confirmation hearings were blocked by filibusters. Furthermore a couple of his NLRB recess appointments had been nominated for a regular appointment but Bush withdrew their nomination before debate began.

[T-Cat]

Looks like a few democrats also voted to end debate.You have it backwards. Almost all of the Democrats voted to end debate, only two voted not to. Once the debate is ended then the final nomination vote can be taken.

All of your pals and your lies can't change the fact that the constitutional process stopped Becker and Obama ignored it.You are wrong. A constitutional process did not stop Becker. The Senate filibuster rule and cloture requirements are rules of the Senate itself and not part of the constitution. The senate has not yet rendered their constitutional advise on Becker and Obama is free to make a recess appointment until then.

Appointing during a recess is one thing, but to appoint someone who has already been turned down and the debate ended is quite another.He hadn’t been turned down and the debate hadn’t been ended, his nomination was still pending. Following a recess appointment he would have to be re-nominated for confirmation if he was to serve a full term

[T-Cat]

All the more reason for Obama to do what he did.

The repubs. already admitted that they aren't going to comply with anything this year.There was a serious need to fill empty NLRB positions. There is an active legal challenge on the ability of the board to rule without at least a three person quorum.

There were only two sitting members on the National Labor Relations Board before Obama made these recess appointments. He had three pending nominations which had been given to congress last July and out of committee by October of last year which hadn't been given a confirmation vote by the senate. Previous to the failed cloture vote, Senator McCain had put a hold on Becker's nomination and Becker had to be re-nominated. The other two candidates are also waiting for a nomination vote.

As you say, not a lot of cooperation going on.

[Boogie man]

All the more reason for Obama to do what he did.

The repubs. already admitted that they aren't going to comply with anything this year.

The debate was stopped constitutionally.

[Boogie man]

No it doesn’t mean he was rejected, the senate does not reject a nomination with a failed cloture vote. They simply didn’t have enough votes to end the debate on his nomination, it is technically still pending. The senate can only reject a nomination with a vote on the final question: “Will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?”. Such a vote has not taken place.

First you claimed Becker’s nomination was rejected by the senate 52-43. This is false, his nomination was blocked by a filibustered in the senate and the cloture motion failed 33-52.

Then you claimed it was bipartisan when only 2 out of 57 Democrats voted against cloture, while 51 voted for it and no Republicans voted for Yea to cloture. It was a typical highly partisan filibuster vote, had it been a simple up and down confirmation vote the senate would have confirmed him.

Bush did the same thing, making recess appointments for candidates whose confirmation hearings were blocked by filibusters. Furthermore a couple of his NLRB recess appointments had been nominated for a regular appointment but Bush withdrew their nomination before debate began.

It doesn't matter how many democratic votes there were to make it bipartisan. If there is one vote it is still bipartisan.

Why didn't the dems get enough votes to keep the debate going?

[T-Cat]

It doesn't matter how many democratic votes there were to make it bipartisan. If there is one vote it is still bipartisan.LOL, by that standard then John Bolton's failed senate nomination for the position of Represenative to the United Nations was a bipartisan effort. It's also good to know that the Cap and Trade Energy bill passed by the house had bipartisan support. :lmao2:

Why didn't the dems get enough votes to keep the debate going?You really can't figure it out can you? The dems weren't trying to keep the debate going, they wanted to end the debate so that a nomination vote could be taken. Without a cloture vote, the Republicans can keep debating the nomination.

There are 57 Democrats and 2 Independents, they need at least 1 Republican to vote with them with end a filibuster with a cloture vote. And as there is no bipartisan support, that is nearly impossible to get. Which is almost certainly why 15 senators didn't even bother voting.

[T-Cat]

The debate was stopped constitutionally.You really are dense.

1. The debate was not stopped. A cloture vote is specifically made to STOP the debate after a restricted period of time and the cloture vote failed. The Democrats wanted to stop the debate but couldn't because of a Republican filibuster. The whole point of a filibuster is to keep the debate going so that a nomination vote can't be taken.

2. Again, a cloture vote for filibusters isn't a constitutional requirement. It is a senate rule that the senate created and the senate can change. That was the entire bruha about the nuclear option five years ago to get rid of the filibuster rule.

[bairdi]

You really are dense.

1. The debate was not stopped. A cloture vote is specifically made to STOP the debate after a restricted period of time and the cloture vote failed. The Democrats wanted to stop the debate but couldn't because of a Republican filibuster. The whole point of a filibuster is to keep the debate going so that a nomination vote can't be taken.

2. Again, a cloture vote for filibusters isn't a constitutional requirement. It is a senate rule that the senate created and the senate can change. That was the entire bruha about the nuclear option five years ago to get rid of the filibbuster rule.
It's like talking to a wall. You are right he is wrong and except for him and a few of his toadies here the entire rest of the nation knows that what you say is true.

[Boogie man]

I see it now. I see what you're talking about. The dem lawyers in congress are just smarmy in their tactics so thanks for explaining how their smarmy tactics work.

Now we have a smarmy Marxist hack running the Labor Department. He's never created a job in his Marxist life.

[T-Cat]

I see it now. I see what you're talking about.I somehow doubt it.

The dem lawyers in congress are just smarmy in their tactics so thanks for explaining how their smarmy tactics work.What exactly did the dem lawyers in congress do? And what did they do differently than those smarmy Republican lawyers in congress when Bush made his recess appointments which included nominees who were blocked by a filibuster?

Now we have a smarmy Marxist hack running the Labor Department. He's never created a job in his Marxist life.Ummm no. The National Labor Relations Board is NOT the Department of Labor, it is an independent agency. And Becker isn't running the NLRB, he is just a board member.

[MarkMiller]

41 Senate Republicans wrote Obama this week urging him not to use a recess appointment for Becker, a former top lawyer with Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, whose nomination was rejected by the Senate last month, 52-43.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also wrote Obama on behalf of 20 business groups that opposed Becker's nomination and decried the recess appointment.

"This recess appointment disregards the Senate's bipartisan rejection of Craig Becker's nomination to the NLRB," Chamber Vice President Randall Johnson said in a written statement.

"Overriding the will of the Senate and providing this special interest payback contradicts the president's claim to change the tone in Washington," he said. "The business community should be on red alert for radical changes that could significantly impair the ability of America's job creators to compete."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/obama-makes-recess-appointments-vacant-administration-posts/
The President has the right to do this. Bush did it and now it is being done for the same reasons.

[Moby]

It's a shame that someone posting all over the Internet doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. This is America. It is not tyranny.

Boogie, how old are you?

[David Lyle Segal]

The US Senate in a bipartisan vote rejected Baker. Obama appoints him anyway. Now I want one of you moonbats to tell me that this isn't tryanny and as un-American as it gets.

1. Where did the US Senate do any such thing? As I read the news, 2 Democrats (is this what you mean by "bi-partisan"?) joined 50 Republicans (against 33 Democrats) to vote against cloture of the filibuster that was blocking an up-or-down vote. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/02/09/2198553.aspx

2. If it's constitutional, how can the appointment be tyrannical?

David Segal

[David Lyle Segal]

.... the fact that the constitutional process stopped Becker and Obama ignored it.

And Obama made use of the same constitutional process to decide the appointment that the Senate couldn't bring to a vote. I sure don't see anything illegal, much less tyrannical, about that. If anything has a problem with the constitution, it's the Senate 60-vote cloture rule.

David Segal

[Citizen]

You're one of those liberal lawyers aren't you.

[David Lyle Segal]

You're one of those liberal lawyers aren't you.

I don't know about "those", but I'm both a lawyer and fairly liberal in some aspects of my political views. What does being "one of those liberal lawyers" that have to do with the question of whether the claim that Craig Becker had been "rejected by a bi-partisan vote of the Senate" was truthfully portrayed? I thought we were talking about facts, not whose side are you on.

Some people rely on facts to form their judgments; they want the facts to be accurate. Others think that their judgments come first; they don't need facts at all. Are you one of those "I don't need the facts" people?

David Segal

[Boogie man]

I don't know about "those", but I'm both a lawyer and fairly liberal in some aspects of my political views. What does being "one of those liberal lawyers" that have to do with the question of whether the claim that Craig Becker had been "rejected by a bi-partisan vote of the Senate" was truthfully portrayed? I thought we were talking about facts, not whose side are you on.

Some people rely on facts to form their judgments; they want the facts to be accurate. Others think that their judgments come first; they don't need facts at all. Are you one of those "I don't need the facts" people?

David Segal

If you're a lawyer then you know the meaning of "bipartisan". If they have only one republican vote it is still "bipartisan". You may not like that and it may not qualify in your personal definition, but it is still bipartisan.

[Citizen]

I don't know about "those", but I'm both a lawyer and fairly liberal in some aspects of my political views. What does being "one of those liberal lawyers" that have to do with the question of whether the claim that Craig Becker had been "rejected by a bi-partisan vote of the Senate" was truthfully portrayed? I thought we were talking about facts, not whose side are you on.

Some people rely on facts to form their judgments; they want the facts to be accurate. Others think that their judgments come first; they don't need facts at all. Are you one of those "I don't need the facts" people?

David Segal

Its douchebags like you that pervert the system and make a mockery of it. I'm sick and tired of assholes destroying this country! You know its so easy for "elitists" like you push any political you want and not suffer any consequences from it like these insane liberal professors. Here go chase this...

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3614/emrpfig1qf4.jpg

and don't come back to OUR country!

[T-Cat]

If you're a lawyer then you know the meaning of "bipartisan". If they have only one republican vote it is still "bipartisan". You may not like that and it may not qualify in your personal definition, but it is still bipartisan.Ahhh, Boogie man wants only to address the technical definition of bipartisan, while ignorning the false information he has presented in this thread, some of it multiple times.

Boogie man also wishes to ignore the fact that George W. Bush did the exact same thing, using recess appointments to install people to high level positions who had their nominations stalled in the senate by a filibuster just like Becker's.

Obama made a recess appointment fully inline with the constitution, and under circumstances that are no different than appointments made by previous presidents include GWB.

[T-Cat]

Its douchebags like you that pervert the system and make a mockery of it. I'm sick and tired of assholes destroying this country! You know its so easy for "elitists" like you push any political you want and not suffer any consequences from it like these insane liberal professors. Here go chase this...

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3614/emrpfig1qf4.jpg

and don't come back to OUR country!LOL, yes, blame it on "insane liberal professors". :lmao2:

[Citizen]

LOL, yes, blame it on "insane liberal professors". :lmao2:

You too, get out of OUR country!

[T-Cat]

You too, get out of OUR country!Now now citizen, you calm down.

Get to work on that constitutional amendment which takes away the president's power to make recess appointments.

[slowhand]

You too, get out of OUR country!

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[mwillman]

You too, get out of OUR country!

who is this OUR citizen you fucking right wing nutjob.
My family has been here for close to 400 years and has fought for this nation in ever war since the revolution. Tell me citizen who is this OUR you speak of you racists fuck.

[Citizen]

Calling somebody a racist is the war cry for the cowardly. Coward. If you crazy libs hate this country so much so why don't you leave!? Go away if you find it so terrible.

[T-Cat]

Calling somebody a racist is the war cry for the cowardly. Coward.Telling someone to get out of the country because you can't address the facts of the issue is extremely lazy.

[mwillman]

I know what you are citizen and I know what OUR country is code for.

You don't deny being a racist you just say calling some one a racist is cowardly.

Let me put it another way, you and yours are not the end all be all of American citizens and you and yours do not have the right to define who can and cannot stay in this nation.

The fact that you would think such a thing just proves that you have arrogant beliefs about who and what you are compared to those around you.

I see no reason to believe that you are anything but another arrogant right wing white person who things your little white world is the the end all be all of civilization.

[Citizen]

I'm not talking about any specific issue I'm talking about in general. I hear all the time how terrible our Constitution is. "Times have changed. Haven't you heard we have the internet now... we can fly planes across the Atlantic... we have cell phones, we have pocket pussies, etc. So that automatically means its time to eliminate due process, steal everyone's individual property rights and eliminate the middle class." Its bullshit like this that make you swallow everything the liberal media feeds you. You keep changing the rules all the time, how can you run a civilized society without knowing what the rules are!? Or that the rules change on a whim for "the greater good". Fuck that.

[T-Cat]

I'm not talking about any specific issue I'm talking about in general. I hear all the time how terrible our Constitution is. "Times have changed. Haven't you heard we have the internet now... we can fly planes across the Atlantic... we have cell phones, we have pocket pussies, etc. So that automatically means its time to eliminate due process, steal everyone's individual property rights and eliminate the middle class." Its bullshit like this that make you swallow everything the liberal media feeds you. You keep changing the rules all the time, how can you run a civilized society without knowing what the rules are!? Or that the rules change on a whim for "the greater good". Fuck that.Ahhh, so you aren't talking about any specific issue.

The poster you initially replied to was talking about a specific issue though. And instead of addressing that issue, you just went off in a rant bitching about liberal lawyers rather than addressing the issue.

And nobody "changed the rules" when it came to this issue. All you can do is whine because you are too lazy to present an argument otherwise.

[Moby]

I'm not talking about any specific issue I'm talking about in general. I hear all the time how terrible our Constitution is. "Times have changed. Haven't you heard we have the internet now... we can fly planes across the Atlantic... we have cell phones, we have pocket pussies, etc. So that automatically means its time to eliminate due process, steal everyone's individual property rights and eliminate the middle class." Its bullshit like this that make you swallow everything the liberal media feeds you. You keep changing the rules all the time, how can you run a civilized society without knowing what the rules are!? Or that the rules change on a whim for "the greater good". Fuck that.
If you hear this all the time than you shouldn't have a problem pointing out some examples.

Is this real or are you hearing voices in your head?

[Boogie man]

If you hear this all the time than you shouldn't have a problem pointing out some examples.

Is this real or are you hearing voices in your head?

He has a point. Libs are always changing the rules. Massachusetts did it and was going to do it again when it suited them until they realized that the people were hip to them and very angry. Libs don't care about process. This health care fiasco is proof of that.

[Moby]

He has a point. Libs are always changing the rules. Massachusetts did it and was going to do it again when it suited them until they realized that the people were hip to them and very angry. Libs don't care about process. This health care fiasco is proof of that.
Boogie, again you've tried leaving the talking points and are heading in the wrong direction in an emotional rant :banghead:

How old are you?

Citizens, "I hear all the time how terrible our Constitution is." and I don't think he really hears that unless it's the voices in his head. What are you talking about Boogie Brain?

[Citizen]

I know how you libs just adore the 2nd amendment for example.

[mwillman]

I know how you libs just adore the 2nd amendment for example.

I dont have a problem with the second amendment. I think right wingers like to ignore a few of the words in the second amendment, namely a regulated militia.

Even still I don't have a problem with gun ownership. I do think that when and where you can carry should be up to the local communities as its always been.

I also don't have a problem with waiting periods and licensing.

[mrmeangenes]

I dont have a problem with the second amendment. I think right wingers like to ignore a few of the words in the second amendment, namely a regulated militia.

Even still I don't have a problem with gun ownership. I do think that when and where you can carry should be up to the local communities as its always been.

I also don't have a problem with waiting periods and licensing.

I'm a Centrist, so I guess I don't count-but I have no problem with gun ownership by responsible people (non-criminals,reasonably sane,and reasonably able to get through life without threatening or harming others.)

I also believe local communities and states have the right to set up rules particular to their area.

[Moby]

I know how you libs just adore the 2nd amendment for example.
What does this have to do with your false claim of "I hear all the time how terrible our Constitution is."?

Again I ask you, is this something you hear from real people or the voices in your head?

[Hawkeye2j]

time to eliminate due process, steal everyone's individual property rights and eliminate the middle class."

You just described the goal of the Bush/Cheney Administration

[David Lyle Segal]

If you're a lawyer then you know the meaning of "bipartisan". If they have only one republican vote it is still "bipartisan". You may not like that and it may not qualify in your personal definition, but it is still bipartisan.

Lawyers are no different from anyone else, BM. They can tell when someone plays word games to seize the opportunity to exaggerate. I don't know how anyone could consider 2 Democratic votes (out of 58 or so) as making a Republican filibuster "bipartisan". To me, bipartisan implies general support from both sides of the aisle, and that was the sense that you promoted when you used the term. If you used bipartisan on those "facts" in a commercial advertisement, the FTC would shut you down for using "false and misleading" language to promote your product.

David Segal

[Hawkeye2j]

I know how you libs just adore the 2nd amendment for example.

Actually I believe in the entire second amendment. You know that includes the part that says "A well-regulated militia being necessary" The part the Right ignores.

And we know how you just love the fourth amendment.

[Hawkeye2j]

Just wanted to be the 100th responder

[David Lyle Segal]

Its douchebags like you that pervert the system and make a mockery of it. I'm sick and tired of assholes destroying this country! You know its so easy for "elitists" like you push any political you want and not suffer any consequences from it like these insane liberal professors. Here go chase this... and don't come back to OUR country!

I don't "chase ambulances" or represent plaintiffs (or defendants) in personal injury actions and never have. I'm known as a tax lawyer. For over 40 years I have represented citizens in their tax disputes with the federal, state and local governments. One of these cases (which I won) was reported on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Not one of my clients (all of whom are individuals, not corporations) has been convicted of committing tax fraud.

Do you think that people shouldn't be allowed the assistance of counsel in defending themselves against government tax levies?

David Segal

[Revere]

If anything, there needs to be a greater weight of advocacy on behalf of citizens who want to sue the US government.

With the exception of using the courts to force government to enact new regulations, environmental, to wit.

[slowhand]

If anything, there needs to be a greater weight of advocacy on behalf of citizens who want to sue the US government.

With the exception of using the courts to force government to enact new regulations, environmental, to wit.

You kill me!!

You abhor socialism of any kind, but think we need more people suing the govt :lmao2:

[Revere]

Idiot. You can't sue the government in a socialist society since they are invariably totalitarian. There is no redress. Just a lot of faceless bureaucrats to tell you to go to hell.

You have that backwards.

[slowhand]

Idiot. You can't sue the government in a socialist society. There is no redress. You have that backwards.

Who said we live in a socialist society moron?

The guy who holds in high esteem the great patriot Paul Revere, wants to make it easier for everybody to sue the govt, and in the next breath would repeal the Social Security Act

Backwards?.."The hypocrites are coming!!!!!!!!!..The hypocrites are coming!!!!!!!!!" :lmao2:

[Revere]

Who said we live in a socialist society moron?

The guy who holds in high esteem the great patriot Paul Revere, wants to make it easier for everybody to sue the govt, and in the next breath would repeal the Social Security Act

Backwards?.."The hypocrites are coming!!!!!!!!!" :lmao2:

You're two for two when it comes to things that have nothing to do with each other.

You want to repeal Social Security before it bankrupts the country? Interesting concept.

The individual needs to be protected from the government. A court system of due process is the mechanism for that, which is anathema to socialist or totalitarian systems.

[slowhand]

You're two for two when it comes to things that have nothing to do with each other.

You want to repeal Social Security before it bankrupts the country? Interesting concept.

The individual needs to be protected from the government. A court system of due process is the mechanism for that, which is anathema to socialist or totalitarian systems.

No..YOU want to repeal SS

Fuck it..I'll just call Social Security and tell them I want a refund, with interest..

Hey!!..Is there a lawyer in the house?? :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[slowhand]

A court system of due process is the mechanism for that, which is anathema to socialist or totalitarian systems.

And what are you going to do if that happens?...Move to Costa Rica?

[Libertarian94]

Just wanted to be the 100th responder

Epic fail you got 101:lmao2:

[slowhand]

You want to repeal Social Security before it bankrupts the country? Interesting concept

SS didnt bankrupt the country..The country bankrupted SS