PDA

View Full Version : Duh



Qtec
01-11-2008, 09:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
(h/t MF) George Bush doesn’t like the Constitution. Especially that part where the Senate has to confirm his appointments. Remember when he wanted coal industry executive Richard Stickler to head the Mine Safety agency? Stickler was turned down by the Senate twice. So in late 2006 Bush did what he does and gave Stickler a recess appointment. Now that the recess appointment has expired, Bush has found that by putting “acting” at the beginning of a job title, he can appoint people whenever he likes?

AFL-CIO Blog:

The recess appointment expired at the end of 2007. In a somewhat bizarre chain of events, MSHA removed Stickler’s bio from the agency’s website and announced Jan. 3 that Stickler’s assistant was the acting assistant secretary. But his tenure was brief: On Jan. 4, Bush named Stickler the new acting assistant secretary, a move that does not require congressional approval and is likely to last until the end of Bush’s term. After press reports that Stickler’s bio had been removed, it’s now back online.

Mine Workers (UMWA) President Cecil Roberts says: “The appointment of Richard Stickler to be acting assistant secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, just days after his term in that position expired because he couldn’t be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, demonstrates the deep level of contempt the Bush administration holds for the Senate and the constitutional role that body holds.”

Duh. <hr /></blockquote> web page (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/10/bush-recycles-mine-safety-chief-behind-senates-back-again/)

[ QUOTE ]
coal industry executive Richard Stickler to head the Mine Safety agency? <hr /></blockquote>

Its like Hitler putting the SS in charge of human rights.

Q..........

eg8r
01-11-2008, 09:46 AM
And all you people thought W was dumb. Look at him getting what he wants and there is nothing you can do about it but complain.

Whether Stickler is good for the position or not, I really do like watching the left squirm as W outsmarts them once again.

eg8r

LWW
01-11-2008, 09:50 AM
Hyperbole, thy name is Qtec.

Although I disagree with a POTUS being able to do this, there is nothing "NEW" about it.

Also, read your history. We bring ore out of our mines ... not V-2 rockets to fire from Dutch soil at US/British citizens in England.

LWW

LWW

Qtec
01-11-2008, 09:52 AM
You mean you applaud his disregard for the US Con?

He gets paid to UPHOLD the US Con- not find ways to abuse it.

Q

LWW
01-11-2008, 09:52 AM
It is amazing that the dumbest man to ever hold office is also the most brilliant evil genius the world has ever seen.

LWW

Qtec
01-11-2008, 09:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Hyperbole, thy name is Qtec.

Although I disagree with a POTUS being able to do this, there is nothing "NEW" about it.

Also, read your history. We bring ore out of our mines ... not V-2 rockets to fire from Dutch soil at US/British citizens in England.

LWW

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

I feel totally justified in calling you an Blank.

Q...........how many Nazi bombs were droped on the US mainland- ie how many times was NY, Chicago ,Wash etc bombed ?

What does GW's abuse of the US Con have to do with WW11?

Blank

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

eg8r
01-11-2008, 09:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You mean you applaud his disregard for the US Con? <hr /></blockquote> He is not disregarding anything, that is just something in your head. I do applaud him legally getting around the Democrats and their partisanship.


eg8r

Qtec
01-11-2008, 10:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I do applaud him legally getting around the Democrats and their partisanship.


eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Not getting around the Dems eg8r - getting around Congress.

He appoints someone thru the back door against the will of Congress [ partisan ? ]and against the spirit of the US Con and you applaud him?

Q

LWW
01-11-2008, 10:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>What does GW's abuse of the US Con have to do with WW11?

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif <hr /></blockquote>
Nothing.

That's why I commented on your typically inane comments.

Confusing yourself now are you Q?

LWW

eg8r
01-11-2008, 10:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Not getting around the Dems eg8r - getting around Congress. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, yeah, he has a real problem getting the Rep side of the house to approve his nominations. It is the Dems that get in his way and they are the ones he is legally circumventing.

[ QUOTE ]
He appoints someone thru the back door against the will of Congress <hr /></blockquote> Against the will of the Democrats. You crack me up with the use of the "spirit" of the Cons. The man is acting legally and you don't like it because you want the Dems to be able to block him, sorry he is smarter than you.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-11-2008, 11:04 AM
Tell me Ed, which is most important to you? George Bush, or the safety of miners? If you think that money and power doesn't buy plenty of expertise for bastardizing our laws, and constitution, then you would be correct to give Bush the supposed intellectual ability to pull off all the illegal methods he has used to perform actions which are not the best for our country, but regardless of whether it is for the miners, our troops, or his many incompetent appoitments of incompetent people, the man has a well documented record of going around the law, and acting as nothing more than a banker for his contributors, and the king of the land.

As I have said many time, it is about our country, our troops, and the future of our kids. It is also about a Republican majority which defaulted on their responsibility to defend the Constitution and the laws of the land, along with their own congressional responsibility to provide a check and balance through their branch of government.

Along with that, Democrats should be doing more than they are also, limited as they are without a majority vote to overturn his vetos, they should be in the process of impeaching both Bush and Cheney.

For once put our country ahead of your partisanship. Do you approve of these transgressions? I find it hard to believe, since you do have children that you do.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-11-2008, 11:10 AM
You are quite wrong about that, Ed. It was a bi-partisan effort, not the Dems. The appointments process involved both parties, not just one. You seem to foten overlook the many times when Republicans and Democrats do come together on important measures for our country, only to have Bush completely ignore their legislation, through bastardized use of signing statements, and other methods, such as "Acting" designations for positions that he knows neither party would approve.

This is the kind of partisanship, on your part, which goes against the best interests of our country.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
01-11-2008, 11:12 AM
What evidence do you have that mine safety is impaired?

None?

Thank you.

Was there a point other than throwing mud?

I didn't think so.

Thank you once again for wasting bandwidth.

LWW

wolfdancer
01-11-2008, 11:20 AM
What does GW's abuse of the US Con have to do with WW11?
It's just another idiotic reply of his...that makes no sense.
He doesn't like my posts because I call him on his claims....but he's kidding himself if he thinks anybody is taking him serious.
A reply like this one he made to your post.. tells me...he jes might have rode that short bus to school, as Sonoma mentioned.
Mine safety appointment= V2 rockets???????
Might be time to get back on the bus.....

eg8r
01-11-2008, 11:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Tell me Ed, which is most important to you? George Bush, or the safety of miners? <hr /></blockquote> I am not interested in going down this rabbit hole of yours. All I was saying is that you guys continue to tell us how dumb the man is yet he keeps showing you up. I hate to say it but I think he just "acts" dumb because he is making fools of the Democratic party.

eg8r

wolfdancer
01-11-2008, 11:24 AM
You believe the V2 rocket mention was a cogent rebuff of Q's post on the end run appointment, that is against the wishes of Congress?

eg8r
01-11-2008, 11:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You are quite wrong about that, Ed. It was a bi-partisan effort, not the Dems. The appointments process involved both parties, not just one. <hr /></blockquote> You are not paying any attention to what I am saying. I understand that both parties have a say. What I joked about was whether he has any problems getting the Reps to approve his nominations, the answer is NO. It is only the Dems that stand in his way. I was not wrong you just did not read what I typed.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of partisanship, on your part, which goes against the best interests of our country.
<hr /></blockquote> Partisanship is partisanship, there are not any different flavors to choose from. Your partisanship is no different other than being on the other side.

eg8r

SKennedy
01-11-2008, 11:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Hyperbole, thy name is Qtec.

Although I disagree with a POTUS being able to do this, there is nothing "NEW" about it.

Also, read your history. We bring ore out of our mines ... not V-2 rockets to fire from Dutch soil at US/British citizens in England.

LWW

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

All true....Bush was not the first to do this...and I also agree it is wrong, no matter who is doing it. Then again, congress doesn't help in this matter either when they pull their shenanigans. Heck, it is just politics as usual...and remember thay are all giving themselves raises and fat retirements. They don't serve us anymore, we serve them!!

wolfdancer
01-11-2008, 11:28 AM
he's definitely a convincing actor though...I still don't see where his answer has any logic to it,....but I guess that's why I'm on the other side of the "fence"

eg8r
01-11-2008, 11:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You believe the V2 rocket mention was a cogent rebuff of Q's post on the end run appointment, that is against the wishes of Congress? <hr /></blockquote> If you look at my post you will see that I was responding directly to Q. My response also was strictly based on the fact that Bush continually makes fools of the Dems in Congress even though he is supposed to be the dumb one.

It might serve you better to view the posts in "tree view" instead of a flat view. That way you don't get confused on who people are responding to.

eg8r

wolfdancer
01-11-2008, 11:35 AM
I think the real issue is...is he the best man for the job, or just another crony, hack appointment from a President that has a history of making poor appointments?
Since Congress represents the people's interests....he may be legally slipping in another non-competent ....but it is just another example of a President that refuses to work with Congress.

wolfdancer
01-11-2008, 11:40 AM
thank you for that advice, but I was aware of who you responded to (there's a little clue on each post)also I prefer the flat view....
I reread your post and still thought you were endorsing the idiot child's inane comparisons to WWII and V2 rocketry....

LWW
01-11-2008, 11:45 AM
I think the real issue is why do you continue to troll threads?

LWW

eg8r
01-11-2008, 11:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
thank you for that advice, but I was aware of who you responded to (there's a little clue on each post)also I prefer the flat view....
I reread your post and still thought you were endorsing the idiot child's inane comparisons to WWII and V2 rocketry.... <hr /></blockquote> I guess all that is left is for you to quote the part of my post that has you all confused? All I have done was refer to the fact that W is outsmarting all those that think they are smarter than him.

eg8r

eg8r
01-11-2008, 11:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think the real issue is...is he the best man for the job <hr /></blockquote> That is not the real issue if you are referring to any of my posts. I already stated I did not know if he was the best man for the job.

[ QUOTE ]
but it is just another example of a President that refuses to work with Congress. <hr /></blockquote> The Dems sure would prefer their sheep to believe this lie. W just does not want to work with the Dems in Congress that currently have the majority control and have vowed to vote against him.

eg8r

wolfdancer
01-11-2008, 12:00 PM
the only thing I can see that he's getting what he wants...is attention; the same attention one gives to an annoying child. He may be outsmarting the "left" by pissing then off with his illogical posts....I find him particularly annoying for his attempts at self-promotion.

eg8r
01-11-2008, 12:03 PM
You have me confused. My posts are about W, who the heck are you talking about?

eg8r

wolfdancer
01-11-2008, 12:05 PM
Is your definition of trolling threads, a'hole...having a discussion with Ed on the topic?

eg8r
01-11-2008, 12:15 PM
What the heck are you talking about? I have not had any discussions with LWW since back when I was trying to get him to tone his posts down.

eg8r

wolfdancer
01-11-2008, 01:01 PM
I'm also confused...I thought W was lww...never saw GWB referred to as W, but I lead a sheltered life.
We'll disagree then on the appointment....

wolfdancer
01-11-2008, 01:02 PM
Ed, he was accusing me of trolling the thread, and I replied that I was just having a discussion with you on the topic....

Gayle in MD
01-11-2008, 01:14 PM
Could you simply answer the question? You are very good at skirting around any question that proves your blind partisanship. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
01-11-2008, 01:19 PM
He used a signing statement to get around McCain's last bill, is he a Democrat?

No other president has used signing statements for the sole purpose of saying, I WILL NOT ABIDE BY THIS LAW&gt; Tell me, do you want a king, or a democratic process?

Froget about parties, in what kind of country do you want your children to grow up? A monarchy? A dictatorship? Just try to take that Republican hat off your head occasionally, and take a good hard look at what Bush is doing to our Constitution, and rule of law. Or are you just another LWW, with more education?

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
01-11-2008, 01:26 PM
No I am not interested in answering your question when it is a reply to the post I made. Your entire post was based on you ignoring the point of my post. When I tell you immeadiately that I am not interested in going down the rabbit hole then I am no longer "skirting" anything, I am blatantly letting you know I was not going to answer the question.

My post was about something completely different than what you thought it was about and you are asking me to answer some question based on your mis-interpretation of my post.

eg8r

eg8r
01-11-2008, 01:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
He used a signing statement to get around McCain's last bill, is he a Democrat? <hr /></blockquote> Sometimes it is hard to tell, but he does have the R next to his name. There have not been too many of W's bills that have been crushed on the vote of one person, has there?

I find this whining of the left hilarious. You don't want to face the fact that W is out-witting you and you are not that smart after all. Gayle you must be the only person surprised to know that W has a better chance of getting the Reps to agree with him than he would the Dems. I am referring to the party as a whole which is exactly what I was doing in the previous posts in this thread. You are trying to find individuals to denounce what I am saying however that will never work when I am referring to the population as a whole.

[ QUOTE ]
No other president has used signing statements for the sole purpose of saying, I WILL NOT ABIDE BY THIS LAW <hr /></blockquote> That is your opinion and you will never have any data to prove it. You don't know for fact the real reasons why any previous Presidents did anything. Also, you are implying that he is doing something illegal however we all know that to be untrue. He is acting perfectly legal.

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me, do you want a king, or a democratic process?
<hr /></blockquote> I want what is best for this country and I am positive you and I probably would not agree and I am not up to the task to go issue by issue with you when you consistently twist and exaggerate what I am trying to say.

[ QUOTE ]
Froget about parties, in what kind of country do you want your children to grow up? A monarchy? A dictatorship? <hr /></blockquote> I want them to grow up in the same country that I have grown up in.

[ QUOTE ]
Just try to take that Republican hat off your head occasionally <hr /></blockquote> Practice what you preach.

eg8r

eg8r
01-11-2008, 01:40 PM
Alright, see I told you I was confused. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-11-2008, 01:48 PM
LOL, Hey, don'tchaknow, Bush is smart! Duh...he's so smart that the whole world has lost respect for America. He's sure outsmarted bin Laden, he did such a good job, bin Laden has more recruits than he can train. He's so smart, that the country is heading head long into the worst financial mess we've faced since the crash. He's so smart, that Republican Candidates refuse to have4 him show up at their fund raisers. He's so damned smart, that China owes us trillions of dollars, NOT, and we have a balanced budget, NOT, and we've solved the social security issues, NOT, and rebuilt our crumbling infrastructure, NOT, and built allies, all over the world, NOT&lt; and settled the Middle East Crises, NOT, and enjoyed seven years on non partisan success on the HILL, NOT...

Yeah, wolf, Bush sat down all by himself and figured out how to get around our laws, and constitution!

Man, how damned dumb can people be? Better yet, how damned unpatriotic can a person be if they applaud a President who has gotten away with everything including mass murder, for no reason at all, other than making his rich budies richer, and stealing another country's oil, and leaving the debt firmly on the shoulders of the Middle Class.

Why do we bother posting with people who are so damned dumb that they think their getting a tax cut, while they're paying for the lifestyles of the rich and famous?

It's a waste of time.

Gayle in MD
01-11-2008, 02:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes it is hard to tell, but he does have the R next to his name. There have not been too many of W's bills that have been crushed on the vote of one person, has there?
<hr /></blockquote>

Ed, it was McCain's Bill. Nothing to do with one vote.

The rest of your post only shows me that as opinionated as you are, you don't really keep up with what is happening in the government, including what Bush is doing with the signing statements. In fact, your knowledge about the issues is usually limited to what one would learn if they were only interested in what the right wing talking points were feeding to the public. The legal anaylsis, and outrage over Bush's unprecedented use of signing statements, to avoid following legislated law, is being debated by the top legal authorities in the country, both Republicans and Democrats.

BTW, you seem particularly nasty today. I hope you get laid this weekend. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Bobbyrx
01-11-2008, 03:16 PM
First, I agree he is a terrible president. However, if he's guilty of breaking so many hundreds of laws, especially MASS MURDER, why is he still President? If the Dems had any opening to take him down, don't you agree that they would? I think he's merely incompetent.

Qtec
01-11-2008, 09:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> That is not the real issue if you are referring to any of my posts. I already stated I did not know if he was the best man for the job.

The Dems sure would prefer their sheep to believe this lie. W just does not want to work with the Dems in Congress that currently have the majority control and have vowed to vote against him.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

The issue.

[ QUOTE ]
The UMWA’s position on Mr. Stickler has remained consistent from the day he was first nominated in 2005. We do not believe someone who has spent the majority of his working life as a coal company manager, supervisor and executive ought to be appointed as head of MSHA<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao missed the Dec. 15 deadline to issue new federal rules for better trained mine rescue teams at the nation’s coal mines. The Charleston Gazette reports:

The rules are still not finalized and are sitting at the White House, under review by the Office of Management and Budget.

In 2006, spurred by what would become the highest coal mine death toll since 1996—including the deaths of 19 coal miners at the Sago, Aracoma and Darby mines in West Virginia and Kentucky—Congress passed and President Bush signed the MINER Act that mandated several mine safety improvements, including rescue teams.



The June 2006 mine law gave the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 18 months to finalize the new rescue rules. It took the safety agency 15 months to write the proposed rules and now the Bush administration says it can’t provide a timeline for issuing them.



Our friends at Hillbilly Report point out that:

Elaine Chao is quick to give American workers advice, but slow when it comes to doing her own job. I suggest we have a skills gap here.
<hr /></blockquote>

Next time there is a mine accident and people die because the Govt have not done their job by appointing a hack , will you still say, "well done GW".
Remember Brownie who was doing such a great job during Katrina? What were his qualifications for getting that position?

GW DOES have contempt for Congress.....The Con ..and the Law. Thats a fact.
Its also clear where his priorities lie when it comes to the Mining industry and miners lives.
Q

eg8r
01-11-2008, 10:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, you seem particularly nasty today. I hope you get laid this weekend. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, me too. I have not seen the wife and family since last Saturday. I get cranky when I am away.

eg8r

eg8r
01-11-2008, 10:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Next time there is a mine accident and people die because the Govt have not done their job by appointing a hack , will you still say, "well done GW".
<hr /></blockquote> Well, I understand what you are trying to say but there can be a mine accident even if every safety net is in place. An accident is an accident. Hopefully there is never another accident again and this is a moot point.

eg8r

LWW
01-12-2008, 05:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> First, I agree he is a terrible president. However, if he's guilty of breaking so many hundreds of laws, especially MASS MURDER, why is he still President? If the Dems had any opening to take him down, don't you agree that they would? I think he's merely incompetent. <hr /></blockquote>
The question they cower in fear of.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-12-2008, 03:16 PM
They don't have two third of both houses. They can't do anything without two thirds, from Impeachment investigations, hearings on Impeachment, or overturning of his veto.

The Senate, for example almost unamously, if not unamously, rejected this last appointment, can't recall the man's name right now, so Bush waited until they left on the holiday, and put him in there anyway.

Now he's using the title, Acting, this or that, to appoint people, and get around the required congressional approval.

Here's what I can't understand. MAny from the right justify and enjoy all his shenanigans he uses to get around our laws. Our founders clearly formed our government with three, separate, but equal branches, to afford checks and balances. They were quite brilliant. They did not want, in case a man had been elected to office, and proved later to be incompetent, or unworthy, the P:resident to have su0preme authority. His powers are great, but checks and balances are there for a reason. George Bush has continuously ignored the law, gone around congressional oversight, and abused his power. If there were Democratic majority of two thirds, in both houses, he could never have gotten away with it. Much of it is still in the courts. but tow courts have stated that the wire taps on Americans, without going to court first, are illegal. His attorney's are appealing everything.

I can tell you this much. If we had a Democratic president, and he was doing these things, I would be just as outraged over the issues, as I am regarding Bush. The fact that his legal advisors have aided him in finding, and/or, creating false loop holes to allow him to abuse his power, is not a result of his intellect, but much more so a sign of his character. He view himself as being above our laws, the Constitution, the congress, IOW, he thinks he is our KING&gt;

This should be disgusting to all Americans, IMO.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-12-2008, 03:22 PM
It isn't a moot point, Ed. The
Senate voted against this guy twice. Both Republicans, and Democrats. That's what I keep trying to tell you righties. When he uses signing statements, for example, he is thumbing his nose at our founders, our Constitution, our laws, and we the people.

Once a president signs a law, he is bound by that law, just like the rest of us. No other president has used signing statements in the manner he has used them. All other presidents who did use them, used them to convey how they felt about the law, never to procalim that they wouldn't follow it.

He has abused his power throughout. All Americans should be upset about that. It is unconsitutional, and bad for our country, unless you want to end up in a monarchy, with a King like George IV. It isn't about Bush, vs Democratics, it's about Bush, vs WE THE PEOPLE, represented by our congress, and Senate.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
01-12-2008, 03:24 PM
I can tell you this much. If we had a Democratic president, and he was doing these things, I would be just as outraged over the issues, as I am regarding Bush. The fact that his legal advisers have aided him in finding, and/or, creating false loop holes to allow him to abuse his power, is not a result of his intellect, but much more so a sign of his character.

I was surprised that Ed would approve of his "outsmarting" the Dems...because clearly what he has done is in violation of the intents of the framers of the constitution....with the worst example being his pardon for all sins past,present, and future. I can't even get a similar deal from the Catholic church, even with a promise to tithe.

bamadog
01-12-2008, 03:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>



Man, how damned dumb can people be? Better yet, how damned unpatriotic can a person be if they applaud a President who has gotten away with everything including mass murder, for no reason at all, other than making his rich budies richer, and stealing another country's oil, and leaving the debt firmly on the shoulders of the Middle Class.

Why do we bother posting with people who are so damned dumb that they think their getting a tax cut, while they're paying for the lifestyles of the rich and famous?

It's a waste of time. <hr /></blockquote>

If it's such a "waste of time", why do you continue to rant?
Gayle, once again you demonstrate what a delusional hater you are.
Please try to inform yourself with something other than lefty propaganda.
You embarrass yourself, and bore us.
It is little wonder that you refuse to answer questions about the lack of factual content in your posts. You have no defense. You are just a tool.

eg8r
01-14-2008, 01:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I was surprised that Ed would approve of his "outsmarting" the Dems...because clearly what he has done is in violation of the intents of the framers of the constitution <hr /></blockquote> Whether it is or isn't outside their intents, I was not going that far. I was stopping at the point that he is supposed to be the dumbest President ever yet he keeps getting whatever he wants in spite of the Dems. If half of what the left says is true about the guy he would have been impeached long ago.

eg8r

LWW
01-15-2012, 04:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote eg8r:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt; I do applaud him legally getting around the Democrats and their partisanship.


eg8r &lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Not getting around the Dems eg8r - getting around Congress.

He appoints someone thru the back door against the will of Congress [ partisan ? ]and against the spirit of the US Con and you applaud him?

Q </div></div>

Snoopy hath been hoist by his own petard ... again.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>BWA</span><span style='font-size: 23pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 11pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 8pt'>HA</span><span style='font-size: 8pt'>HA ........</span>

Soflasnapper
01-15-2012, 05:56 PM
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>LOL!!!</span>

You should be sat down with many, many sets of 'which thing is not like the other?' to refine your appreciation of what is the same and what is not.

The Senate is under Democratic majority control. It FAVORS the appointment of this man. It is the House that was controlling the situation to allegedly make a Senate recess too short, not any opposition of the Senate to this man's appointment.

In no way does this 'get around Congress,' even if it is getting around the House, I suppose, because of how the COTUS empowers the House to advise and consent on appointments (by leaving them entirely out of the picture, I mean).

It is rather that the Senate's majority's true will has now come true.

LWW
01-16-2012, 03:01 AM
Look straight up ... it went well over your head, but it's circling there.

Qtec
01-16-2012, 04:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Look straight up ... it went well over your head, but it's circling there. </div></div>

I must say, this brilliant post of yours is a classic. You totally destroyed his argument with your brilliant 'fact filled' rebuttal. What an intellect.

LMAO


Once again you come with, "Nah nah, nah, nah nah........

Q... LOL

LWW
01-16-2012, 04:38 AM
Not at all.

I resurrected this thread to give you the opportunity to explain why you were against faux recess appointments before you were for them.

This is where you swear that the topic was succotash.

Soflasnapper
01-16-2012, 04:16 PM
What I read was he complained that Bush 43 was doing an end-run around the will of <s>Congress</s> [should have said] the majority of the Senate.

And that is not true here.

So again, this thing is not like the other one.

But you make 90% of a point. Yes, the Democrats decried Bush's actions when he did recess appointments, as underhanded, and by implication or direct statement, illegitimate in some sense. At the time, the Republicans had nothing bad to say about it, and if they said anything, they supported the move.

Now, the Republicans find this horrible, and a travesty and a power grab, and the DEMOCRATS support it.

That's an accurate statement of the identical hypocrisy of both parties, depending upon whether their guy is doing the same action or if it's the other guy.

And the same thing is going on with regard to whether the recess the Congress is obviously in (check out Majority Leader Kantor's website, where he states the House is in recess) is sufficiently broken up by the faux pro-forma sessions to thwart the POTUS power of recess appointment.

The Democrats invented the theory that it was, and that therefore, their prior (2007) gambit of holding pro-forma sessions against Bush was legitimate, if novel.

Now that the GOP is using the tactic, the Dems cry foul, say it isn't enough to block the recess appointment power, and applaud the POTUS appointments.

The reality, I think, is that it was novel AND illegitimate when first used, and not so novel, and yet still illegitimate, now.

LWW
01-16-2012, 04:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I read was he complained that Bush 43 was doing an end-run around the will of <s>Congress</s> [should have said] the majority of the Senate.</div></div>

That's because you practice doublethink.

What he said was:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mean you applaud his disregard for the US Con?

He gets paid to UPHOLD the US Con- not find ways to abuse it.

Q </div></div>

LWW
01-18-2012, 02:39 AM
Bump ... still waiting for our Euro friend to explain this?

Qtec
01-18-2012, 04:27 AM
These are two totally different situations. If you had read my post you would know that.

BOTH parties were against Stickler.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">he man who will oversee the federal government's investigation into the disaster that has trapped six workers in a Utah coal mine for over a week was twice rejected for his current job by senators concerned about his own safety record when he managed mines in the private sector.

President George W. Bush resorted to a recess appointment in October 2006 to anoint Richard Stickler as the nation's mine safety czar after it became clear he could not receive enough support even in a GOP-controlled Senate.

In the wake of the January 2006 Sago mine disaster in West Virginia, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>senators from both sides of the aisle </span>expressed concern that Stickler was not the right person to combat climbing death rates in the nation's mines. </div></div>

GW's candidate was rejected by both parties, GW then withdrew his nomination and during a recess appointed him anyway.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The recess appointment expired at the end of 2007. In a somewhat bizarre chain of events,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> MSHA removed Stickler’s bio from the agency’s website and <u>announced Jan. 3 that Stickler’s assistant was the acting assistant secretary. But his tenure was brief: On Jan. 4, Bush named Stickler the new acting assistant secretary, a move that does not require congressional approval</u> and is likely to last until the end of Bush’s term.</span> After press reports that Stickler’s bio had been removed, it’s now back online.

Mine Workers (UMWA) President Cecil Roberts says: "The appointment of Richard Stickler to be acting assistant secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, just days after his term in that position expired because he couldn’t be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, demonstrates the deep level of contempt the Bush administration holds for the Senate and the constitutional role that body holds." </div></div>

This was not a case of democrats obstructing like[ we have with the GOP right now], its GW using every dirty trick to keep his special interest Czar in place.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And all you people thought W was dumb. Look at him getting what he wants and there is nothing you can do about it but complain.

Whether Stickler is good for the position or not, I really do like watching the left squirm as W outsmarts them once again.

eg8r </div></div>

How times have changed!

Q

LWW
01-18-2012, 04:44 AM
Pitiful dodge son ... pitiful, pitiful, pitiful.

Even you can do better than that.

Or, better yet, how about ... just once ... manning up.

Qtec
01-18-2012, 04:51 AM
How can stating the FACTS be a dodge?

Q

LWW
01-18-2012, 04:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How can stating the FACTS be a dodge?

Q </div></div>

They wouldn't be, and you haven't stated any.

Shall I pull up the quotes where you insisted they were the same ... and that I had given Bush a pass for the same ... or would it give you a headache to practice triplethink?

Qtec
01-18-2012, 06:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They wouldn't be, and you haven't stated any. </div></div>

I think any sane person that can read would disagree with you. So far all you have is blah blah blah - your own personal opinion, NOT based in fact.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shall I pull up the quotes where you insisted they were the same </div></div>

Did I not just give you an explanation why they are not the same?

Actually, if you look really close you might see that the topic was,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <u>coal industry executive</u> Richard Stickler to head the <u>Mine Safety agency</u>?



Its like Hitler putting the SS in charge of human rights.

Q.......... </div></div>

Q

LWW
01-18-2012, 06:27 AM
Your latest lamentations remind me of a prior post of yours:


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I was flat out wrong of course


Q </div></div>

Qtec
01-18-2012, 07:16 AM
Come on, BE A MAN. Show us all that quote in full context.


Silence.




Just as I thought, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>chicken</span>..., puck, puck , puck,,,,,,etc

Q

LWW
01-18-2012, 03:46 PM
A puck is used in ice hockey.

Now ... are you going to admit to your hypocrisy, or learn from it, or hope that everyone else is dumb enough to believe your jibba jabba.