Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #17002
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- ukit20
Here's the thing...Republicans should approve his nominees in the first place, unless there is some valid reason not to. In this case, they openly said it was not because they opposed Cordray, but because they were opposed to the idea of a Consumer Protection Agency in the first place.
So if you are looking for who is "at fault" here I would point to Congress first. The original power grab here was them blocking the entire Consumer Agency from starting (which had already been passed into law) through a technicality.
- will not happen unless it benefits them, which clearly, in this case, it doesn't. but I'm overstating the obvious, no?********
- This is part of the reason Congress has 8% approvalukit2
- But this plus the NDAA shit, I mean what? I don't care if it was Romney or whomever. Same shit story.********
- The approval is warranted, but BHO is no better and he's defying the Constitution. Get real.********
- I don't think this means a whole lot...it's just the President slapping down Congress' obstructionismukit2
- There is nothing in the Constitution about recess appointments...it's all modern day practice based on unwritten rulesukit2
- rules.ukit2
- i forgot jazx is an expert in africa and constitutional law, tooBonSeff
- His silence when someone calls him JazX is great.DrBombay
- You two border on obsessive with this JazX thing. Why not concentrate on what he says rather than who he is/was?locustsloth
- i feel the same about how you chime in on my commentsBonSeff
- i chime in because you are helping create the environment of baseless contention that you then complain aboutlocustsloth
- And i understand you've been dealing with it longer than i have but still, you are instigating to some degreelocustsloth
- i respect that you take the time to quickly look up facts to refute his bullshit posts.BonSeff
- we've done it in the past as well. it was fruitless and went largely ignored.BonSeff
- why i asked if that was rhetoricalBonSeff
- it has come to the point when i actually am compelled to respond, it is sophomoricBonSeff
- there are some people that post here that actually present good content thoBonSeff
- why i keep coming back. its just drowned by jazx bullshitBonSeff
- i mean dude has run through at least 15-20 usernames in his tenureBonSeff
- i'm sure the prolonged basis that you've been dealing with it diminishes your will to try againlocustsloth
- it seems, at least the last few appearances, the vitriol from him doesn't appear until somebody else starts in with the namecalling etclocustsloth
- namecalling. He's oppositional in a reasonable way until that point. But i get where you're coming fromlocustsloth
- I make fun of him because I hate him, he tries to come around every few months as someone else. He is a textbook troll and you feed him.DrBombay
- troll and you feed him.DrBombay
- You, DrB , are actually the one that feeds his troll nature. That part of him thrives on pissing people off. You provide that for himlocustsloth
- him. i offered a reasonable counter to his article. i was not called a puppet or any other name. He actually agreed that something else may be going onlocustsloth
- something else may be going on. So what if he disagrees with what you like. Offer a respectful counter.locustsloth
- Calling him a troll and being arbitrarily negative is what feeds his negativity.locustsloth
- will not happen unless it benefits them, which clearly, in this case, it doesn't. but I'm overstating the obvious, no?