PDA

View Full Version : GOP filibuster was sabotage



Qtec
12-14-2011, 12:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Republican senator admits that latest GOP filibuster was sabotage</span>

The Republican senator from Utah, Sen. Mike Lee, has been admitting to the press that the GOP vote against President Obama's nominee to the Consumer Financial Protection Board <u>was to sabotage the agency.</u>

Yesterday, a Senate majority of 53 voted to move forward with Richard Cordray's nomination to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The vote was short of the <u>60-vote supermajority he needed to be confirmed.</u>

One of the Republicans who filibustered, Sen. Lee, has been blatantly telling the press that he joined his fellow GOP obstructionists because he simply wants to sabotage President Obama's consumer protection plans.

"I have met Mr. Cordray," Lee said, "and my decision to oppose his confirmation by the Senate has nothing to do with his qualifications. Rather, I felt is my duty to oppose his confirmation as part of my opposition to the creation of the consumer protection board itself."

The senator also said that "confirming any director for this bureau would be tantamount to saying that we need a uniquely powerful agency."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The filibuster of the President's nominee yesterday is seen very broadly as an assault not just on democracy, but even upon the rule of law itself. "The CFPB was created by an act of Congress," said a statement by Think Progress, "and can only be repealed or modified by an act of Congress. By his own admission, Lee's filibuster is an attempt to make an end run around the Constitution's legitimate lawmaking process.</span></div></div>

Obama should have the entire GOP arrested and waterboarded. Simply declare them to be enemies of the USA. He has the power!

Q,,,,,,,,, link (http://www.peoplesworld.org/republican-senator-admits-that-latest-gop-filibuster-was-sabotage/)

Soflasnapper
12-14-2011, 12:36 PM
Hmmm. Deliberate sabotage, and also, admitted hostage taking?

They have themselves APPLIED for the job of enemy combatants. I say they should be hired.

eg8r
12-14-2011, 12:46 PM
OK, so Lee outed himself. What does he have against the nominee?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and my decision to oppose his confirmation by the Senate has nothing to do with his qualifications. Rather, I felt is my duty to oppose his confirmation as part of my opposition to the creation of the consumer protection board itself."
</div></div>So there you go, this is the part that needed to be bolded but you don't care what Lee has to say for himself, you want to bold what others have to say for Lee. You are just a transparent schmuck. Always looking for others to do the thinking for you.

eg8r

Qtec
12-14-2011, 01:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, so Lee outed himself. What does he have against the nominee? </div></div>

Nothing, that's the whole point.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I felt is my duty to oppose his confirmation as <u>part of my opposition to the creation of the consumer protection board itself.</u>" </div></div>

There is a consumer protection board. Its their job to appoint someone to run it.

Q

eg8r
12-14-2011, 02:24 PM
You say he had nothing against the nominee yet he already said that. What you ignored was the part where he said he was doing it because he is against the board itself. Why would you vote in favor of a nominee if you oppose the board the nominee will run? It is only common sense to vote against all nominees in hopes that board goes away. Which is what he is doing.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-14-2011, 05:34 PM
It is only common sense to vote against all nominees in hopes that board goes away. Which is what he is doing.

Common sense to some-- more like blowing up the government into anarchy, to many.

It's something in the law. Either you believe in following the law or you do not. If you do not believe in following the law, you probably shouldn't be in government. Following the law means you do what it says until and unless you can get it changed. If you haven't got it changed, and you refuse to obey it, then you are doing a bad job of honoring our system of laws, and deserve to be thrown out of office.

Not you specifically. You are free to oppose the rule of law if you honestly think that is the best policy. It leaves you open to charges of being an anarchist, however. If any law can be openly flouted and opposed by anyone for any reason, there is little left of the law.

eg8r
12-14-2011, 08:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Common sense to some-- more like blowing up the government into anarchy, to many.
</div></div>Not a whole lot different than a bunch of people fleeing England to come to America for a chance at something new and better. You can get as exaggerated as you want but just because people do not agree with you does not mean they are pro-anarchy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's something in the law. Either you believe in following the law or you do not. </div></div>Oh shut up. He is following the law. He voted no. When did you start acting like Hitler and believe if someone disagrees with you they are breaking the law? Are you calling for him to be murdered next?

eg8r

Qtec
12-15-2011, 05:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oath of Office

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and <span style='font-size: 17pt'>that I will<u> well and faithfully</u> discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.</span>
</div></div>

According to the USCON, once a bill has been passed by both houses and is signed by the POTUS, its law. According to their oath, they are duty bound to accept the will of congress and implement it. Is that what they are doing?
First they objected to Warren, she stepped down. They were afraid because they thought she would be <u>too good</u> at her job.
Now they reject this guy when they have no reason not to.
What they want is to amend the bill, not through the rules clearly stated in the US Constitution, but by blackmail.

What we have here is a small minority of obstructionists who think they rule the country. The law of the land means nothing to them.

If that's not anarchy, I don't know what is.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'Common sense to some-- more like blowing up the government into anarchy, to many.'

Not a whole lot different than a bunch of people fleeing England to come to America for a chance at something new and better. </div></div>

Not even close.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Either you believe in following the law or you do not </div></div>

You still haven't answered.

Q

sack316
12-15-2011, 08:58 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rRZdiu1UE

No sir, the above is sabotage... Beastie Boys... circa 1994.

Sack

Qtec
12-15-2011, 09:12 AM
Something more recent. video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsn8xBVneb8)

Maybe not to everyone's taste.


Q.......loves it.

sack316
12-15-2011, 09:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something more recent. video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsn8xBVneb8)

Maybe not to everyone's taste.


Q.......loves it. </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I hated Nate Dogg passed away. Been listening to him since the days of 213 (Warren G, Snoop, and Nate... before they got big. They did reunite and do an album a couple of years ago if I'm not mistaken, but the old stuff is best!)

Sack

Qtec
12-15-2011, 09:31 AM
The old stuff. Compton's Most Wanted - Hood Took Me Under (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul2vtD4dPt4)

lyrics (http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/grandtheftautosanandreas/hoodtookmeunder.htm)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I got another gang story to tell.
Peep, about how a black nigga was born in hell.
And right then and there it's no hope
cause a nigga can't escape the gangs and the dope.
Damn! And when its black on black, that makes it shitty.
Can't survive in the Compton city. </div></div>


Q

sack316
12-15-2011, 09:35 AM
Links are not there, but I'm guessing some NWA stuff there! Great stuff!

Who knew we were both so gangsta Q? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Does make me feel old, though. Technically the old NWA stuff and all such controversial rap from that era is "classic" now. Wondering when my classic station will have Summer Nights from Grease followed up by F*** Tha Police

Sack

eg8r
12-15-2011, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to the USCON, once a bill has been passed by both houses and is signed by the POTUS, its law. According to their oath, they are duty bound to accept the will of congress and implement it. Is that what they are doing?
</div></div>Yep they are doing it by the law. The board is in place, per the bill that was passed. Now they need to staff it. At this point Lee does not want his vote to be used to approve any of the current nominees. It is perfectly within the law for him to vote no.

eg8r

Qtec
12-15-2011, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Links are not there,</div></div>

Yes they are, check again.

Q

sack316
12-15-2011, 09:38 AM
My bad, link is now there. I liked CMW. There have been rumors about the group coming back together and including The Game.

lol and apologies for making this thread stray so far off topic! Maybe we should have started a new one!

Sack

Soflasnapper
12-15-2011, 06:29 PM
Oh shut up.

A compelling argument there! And quite an explanation as well! To be fair, it is one of your better ones.

He is following the law. He voted no.

This is partially true, but mainly false. The lawful process would be to weigh nominees for suitability, rejecting those who were not, but also confirming those who were. When you state outright that nobody will be suitable, that even this guy you're rejecting is fine, really, and that it is the LAW ESTABLISHING THIS BUREAU you are opposing, by refusing to either staff it or fund it, then that is destroying the system from within, illegitimately.

To be legitimate, you pass a new law repealing the one that put this in place, by law.

When did you start acting like Hitler and believe if someone disagrees with you they are breaking the law? Are you calling for him to be murdered next?

First I'm like Gayle according to you, and now, I'm Hitler? And you wonder why we are concerned about your meds? This is entirely daft, the second part no less than the first. Both are entirely untrue, and bizarre to even read.

ugotda7
12-15-2011, 06:50 PM
Yeah, you're like Gayle.....minus the hot flashes.

eg8r
12-16-2011, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is partially true, but mainly false. </div></div>Actually it is 100% true. He has the job to vote in what he thinks will be best for the country, and on the negative side, his constituents require he votes on what is best for them.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">by refusing to either staff it or fund it, then that is destroying the system from within, illegitimately.
</div></div>Welcome to reality. That is how it works whether it is a program you are for or against. If a politician decides they don't want a law or program they defund it and tear it down. Why would you think this is suddenly "breaking the law" when legally it is the only way.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To be legitimate, you pass a new law repealing the one that put this in place, by law.
</div></div>I agree this is quite an inefficient way of doing things and is also why we have so many "laws" on the books that get looked over every day.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First I'm like Gayle according to you, and now, I'm Hitler?</div></div>Do you need it explained? Would it make you feel better if I chose one of the commie rulers of China. Basically what you are saying is that you don't like the way this man votes so you are going to all of a sudden make it against the law. You words show that you don't really care how the system works, if they don't vote the way you want them to then they are breaking the law.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
12-17-2011, 06:37 PM
It's not breaking the law, as in, there is a criminal penalty for this action.

It is breaking the law, in that, such a procedure violates the letter and spirit of the law, and how to deal with laws one doesn't like.

If you think this is a normal way to handle things, perhaps you can point to prominent examples from the Founders' days when they were in office to show the antiquity, pedigree, and acceptability of this tactic.

I don't think you can find it back when. It is a lawless backdoor way of nullifying laws that one was not able to prevent from being enacted into law, and also that one is also not able to get repealed, under standard rules of proceeding.

It's no way to run a railroad, and I do not believe you can find an example of even more recent vintage where Democrats did this kind of thing.

If you think it's ok, totally fine, totally unobjectionable, then you are asking for such a monkey-wrench in the works that our government will be quickly ground to an utter stop, even more than it has already by such lame and treasonable to the Constitution out of bounds procedures.

This kind of guerilla warfare against our system of laws and lawmaking is a violation of the oath of office to defend the Constitution, and a reason for those proposing it to be removed from office. Or if you think it's Constitutional, please show me where this procedure is authorized.

Qtec
12-17-2011, 07:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This is what Republicans were saying about the CFPB in 2010. They didn’t like that it was set up as part of the Federal Reserve, and they didn’t like that its chairman would be given a five-year term, which meant he didn’t serve at the pleasure of the current president. They lost; the CFPB was born.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Republicans responded to the birth of the CFPB exactly how Hiroo Onada responded to the end of World War II—by pretending <u>they hadn’t really lost.</u></span> After today’s vote, multiple Republicans—Sen. Jon Cornyn and Sen. Roy Blunt, to name two—announced that they’d defeated an “unaccountable czar.” Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin labeled Cordray a “super-czar.” <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #000099">A “czar,” according to the legislation that House Republicans have introduced to ban such positions, is somebody “inappropriately appointed to such position (on other than an interim basis), without the advice and consent of the Senate.”</span> When GOP leaders applied that name to Cordray, they shifted the goalposts. <u>Now, a “czar” is simply somebody who does a job that Republicans don’t want to exist.</u> <span style="color: #990000">
[ ie, all BS and they were pushing that Czar $hit for a year! ]</span></span>
</div></div>

This is just another example of Republican 'bipartisanship'!

It just shows their utter contempt for the rule of law and the will of the people. Now they think Congress is unimportant. Some jumped up little POS thinks HE will decide which laws are implemented and FK the house, the senate and the POTUS!

Q...and the left wing media is all over this....?

Qtec
12-17-2011, 08:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Gingrich: I’ll ‘ignore’ any Supreme Court ruling I disagree with.</span>

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is doubling down from Thursday’s Fox News debate on his vow to abolish federal courts if he disagreed with their decision.

According to The Hill, in a conference call with reporters, Gingrich indicated that it was in the president’s power as commander-in-chief to deem any Supreme Court ruling irrelevant if he or she in the White House disagreed.

The former House Speaker used the Supreme Court’s ruling against the Bush administration exceeding its constitutional authority in handling suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay in 2008 as a basis for his extreme view.

“They just ignored it,” he said. “A commander-in-chief could simply issue instructions to ignore it, and say it’s null and void and I do not accept it because it infringes on my duties as commander-in-chief to protect the country.”

Gingrich also backed his position to subpoena judges or abolish courts entirely if he thought their final rulings were wrong.

The current GOP frontrunner’s position challenges the landmark Supreme Court case of Marbury v Madison in 1803, where America’s highest court would be granted the final word on whether acts by the president or Congress are constitutional. </div></div>

Behold, the New GOP Motto : ....'ignore congress, ignore the SC. We know better'.

Q...you said anarchists, more like fascists.

Q

eg8r
12-18-2011, 08:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not breaking the law, as in, there is a criminal penalty for this action.

It is breaking the law, in that, such a procedure violates the letter and spirit of the law, and how to deal with laws one doesn't like.
</div></div>I can accept that but I would not phrase it as "breaking the law". That implies something criminal which clearly is not the case.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you think this is a normal way to handle things, perhaps you can point to prominent examples from the Founders' days when they were in office to show the antiquity, pedigree, and acceptability of this tactic.
</div></div>LOL, so now you are interested in what the Founders were doing. LOL, with all the breaches of the Constitution pioneered by Democrats I would think you would steer clear of this type of argument.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is a lawless backdoor way of nullifying laws </div></div>Again, there is nothing lawless about it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's no way to run a railroad, and I do not believe you can find an example of even more recent vintage where Democrats did this kind of thing.
</div></div>Actually it happened every single time W nominated someone. The difference is there isn't a Dem in Congress with the spine to admit their intentions.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you think it's ok, totally fine, totally unobjectionable, then you are asking for such a monkey-wrench in the works that our government will be quickly ground to an utter stop,</div></div>Kind of like a very recent example of the super committee winding down to an utter stop. Both parties did the exact same thing using different angles of attack. I honestly do not believe either party wanted to cut $1 trillion so they both "required" certain things to happen knowing the other side would vote "NO" no matter what. Just because the examples are not glaringly similar doesn't discount they are viable.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This kind of guerilla warfare against our system of laws and lawmaking is a violation of the oath of office to defend the Constitution</div></div>It happens every single day on every single bill. The problem is that the ones voting NO don't have the spint to admit why.

eg8r

eg8r
12-18-2011, 08:03 PM
LOL, it is so funny to see you rely on another person's opinion and take it to be fact and the infrastructure to build your delusions. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
12-19-2011, 06:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, it is so funny to see you rely on another person's opinion and take it to be fact and the infrastructure to build your delusions. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

Just wondering, is your Granite-like brain connected to your mouth? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I was the one who brought up the subject in the first place! </span>

Check it out dummy!

A radical embrace of nullification (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=373792#Post373792)

Q

eg8r
12-19-2011, 03:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was the one who brought up the subject in the first place! </div></div>LOL, so you have a reading comprehension issue. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I never said you or anyone else brought it up first or last. All I said was that you will listen to the opinion of someone (who ever you copy/paste from the web) and use it as fact to build your delusion. It is only an opinion dillhole but you act like it is fact.

I will admit though, you definitely sound like you have some education when you shut up and allow your copy/paste to do all the talking. Every time you open your own mouth you spin out of control at a much quicker rate.

eg8r

Qtec
12-20-2011, 06:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All I said was that you will listen to the opinion of someone</div></div>

Yes. Unlike you I realise I don't know it all.
I didn't just take this guy's word for it. I read at least 7 other articles making the same case.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(who ever you copy/paste from the web) and use it as fact to build your delusion. </div></div>

You are the one with the delusion. You think everything you think/believe is true even when the facts show otherwise.



Back to the topic.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">GOP filibuster was sabotage </div></div>

Its beyond doubt that this is a fact. The guy admitted it and the facts back him up.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;</u>"</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; <span style='font-size: 14pt'>and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me Go </span></div></div>

Refusing to appoint someone to sabotage a law that both houses have passed is a clear dereliction of duty.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. </div></div>

Is that what they are doing?

Q

Qtec
12-20-2011, 06:35 AM
Also, I'd like to add that the deficit concious GOP wasted time and money dragging out the confirmation of Warren. They came up with all these false objections when they were never going to confirm anyone.

That makes the whole GOP big fat liars.

Q

eg8r
12-20-2011, 05:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't just take this guy's word for it. I read at least 7 other articles making the same case.
</div></div>Not too hard to find when you are on a partisan witch hunt is it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its beyond doubt that this is a fact. The guy admitted it and the facts back him up.
</div></div>Can't remember if I argued it wasn't sabotage but maybe I was just arguing the semantics. Basically the guy was doing his job in a lawful way and that upsets you. Get over it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Refusing to appoint someone to sabotage a law that both houses have passed is a clear dereliction of duty.
</div></div>No it is not. LOL, this is once again proof that when you open your mouth proof of your education starts going down the drain.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is that what they are doing?
</div></div>Absolutely. In fact this is a great example of "faithfully discharging the duties" of their office. I hate it when a politician simply votes a certain way because the rest of their party is voting that way. That I think goes against their duties.

eg8r

eg8r
12-20-2011, 05:04 PM
LOL, sticks and stones...

eg8r

Qtec
12-22-2011, 05:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Absolutely. In fact this is a great example of "faithfully discharging the duties" of their office. I hate it when a politician simply votes a certain way because the rest of their party is voting that way. That I think goes against their duties.

eg8r </div></div>

You still don't get it.


<span style='font-size: 20pt'>They had their chance to vote! They lost, they should quit whining and suck it up.</span>

A law has been passed. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is now a fact. Its now their job to appoint someone to run it. To refuse to is a dereliction of duty, makes a mockery of their oath and is a direct assault on the USCON.

If you can't see that, your blind. If you agree with it, your mad.

Q

eg8r
12-22-2011, 09:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You still don't get it.


They had their chance to vote! </div></div>You still don't get it. He did vote, it was no. This entire thread is about you whining about a man that is doing his job in a lawful way. Get over it.

Again, do you increase the font size to keep yourself in focus?

eg8r

Qtec
12-22-2011, 10:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You still don't get it. He did vote, it was no.<span style="color: #990000">Thanks but I think we all got that!</span> <u>This entire thread is about you whining about a man that is doing his job in a lawful way. </u>Get over it. </div></div>

No it isn't! This about WHY he votes no.

If he has an objection to a certain candidate, fine. That's his right but lets hear why.

OTOH, if he is sabotaging legislation that both houses have passed then he should be removed or arrested.
If he is on a committee to appoint someone to head the agency, then that is what he is duty bound to do. He is not there NOT to select someone.

Q

eg8r
12-22-2011, 10:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No it isn't! This about WHY he votes no.
</div></div>The man did his job, he voted which is more than Obama could say when it was his turn to vote. Now you are whining because his vote did not go your way.

eg8r

Qtec
12-22-2011, 11:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The man did his job </div></div>

No he didn't.

Q

eg8r
12-23-2011, 03:36 PM
Sure he did. A vote came up and he stuck to his convictions about what he thought was best for the people and voted that way.

eg8r

Qtec
12-24-2011, 08:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure he did. A vote came up and he stuck to his convictions about what he <u>thought was best for the people</u> and voted that way.

eg8r </div></div>

Pretty weird point of view.

A law [a bureau to protect the people from financial fraud ] that has been passed by both houses, <u> who incidentally represent the will of the people</u>, is being sabotaged by one individual who claims to be doing the will of the people!

Where do you get this garbage from. My guess is you probably made it up. Its all you do.

Q

Soflasnapper
12-25-2011, 04:17 PM
I agree.

The level of personal obstructionism allowable by members of Congress is set by the rules of each body, per the Constitution. So a single senator may put a hold on anything they want to obstruct, as a matter of Senate rules. Similarly with the filibuster as obstruction.

There is no rule that allows the Congress to refuse to fund agencies set up by binding law, or to refuse to appoint members of a body set up by binding law. Rather, it is their duty to vote the (non-zero) funding level, and vote (some) members of the body into office.

If we allow this kind of back-door sabotage of the functions of Congress, then we have simply destroyed the ability of the country to go forward under the current rule of law.

It is not an allowable tactic to cut off the electricity to the Congress to make voting dangerous, even if it may or may not be against the law, per se. That is gaming the system.

Similarly with these kinds of no-funding, or no-appointing stunts. Whether or not they are illegal, they are devastating to the rule of law, and the acceptance of the will of the majority as expressed under the law and under the rules of each body.

There are words for people who will not accept majority rule, and insist upon getting their way whether they win the vote or do not. Those words are anti-democrat, anti-republican, both words in lower case generic terms, or really, anti-American.

There is no recourse to such behavior, however, other than to call it out, and call for voters to remove those who will not cease and desist such guerilla tactics in the legislature.

eg8r
12-25-2011, 09:52 PM
I guess you struggle to see the difference from your point of view and the point of view of a politician.

eg8r

eg8r
12-25-2011, 09:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no rule that allows the Congress to refuse to fund agencies set up by binding law, or to refuse to appoint members of a body set up by binding law. Rather, it is their duty to vote the (non-zero) funding level, and vote (some) members of the body into office.
</div></div>And nothing here has been broken. This man "voted". Hello, if he had acted like Obama and just chose to not vote would you be happier? Either way it is still one less vote. Now had this nomination been thwarted by one vote I could understand the whining but in the end there are more people than one that think this is not the right thing to vote on.

eg8r

manu4749
12-26-2011, 07:24 AM
yes Ok Thank Fro You SoMuch info!!

cushioncrawler
12-26-2011, 02:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree. The level of personal <span style='font-size: 14pt'>obstructionism </span>allowable by members of Congress is set by the rules of each body, per the Constitution. So a single senator may put a hold on anything they want to obstruct, as a matter of Senate rules. Similarly with the filibuster as obstruction. There is no rule that allows the Congress to <span style='font-size: 14pt'>refuse to fund agencies </span>set up by binding law, or to refuse to appoint members of a body set up by binding law. Rather, it is their duty to vote the (non-zero) <span style='font-size: 14pt'>funding level, </span>and vote (some) members of the body into office. If we allow this kind of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>back-door sabotage</span> of the functions of Congress, then we have simply destroyed the ability of the country to go forward under the current rule of law. It is not an allowable tactic to <span style='font-size: 14pt'>cut off the electricity </span>to the Congress to make voting dangerous, even if it may or may not be against the law, per se. That is gaming the system. Similarly with these kinds of no-funding, or no-appointing stunts. Whether or not they are illegal, they are devastating to the rule of law, and the acceptance of the will of the majority as expressed under the law and under the rules of each body. There are words for people who will not accept majority rule, and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>insist upon getting their way </span>whether they win the vote or do not. Those words are anti-democrat, anti-republican, both words in lower case generic terms, or really, anti-American. There is no recourse to such behavior, however, other than to call it out, and call for voters to remove those who will not cease and desist such guerilla tactics in the legislature.</div></div>Krappynomicysts will get their way -- krappynomicysts will happyly obstrukt and nonfund and sabotage and cutoff -- and they will be praised for their untiring efforts -- its their job, their duty -- and all perfiktly legal, and perfiktly devastating.
2012 in the usofa will be interesting.
mac.

manu4749
01-06-2012, 04:05 AM
yess Thank For youi!

________________

sbobet (http://www.sbobetsbobet.com/)-ผลบอล (http://www.xn--r3ce0ab1b.com/analyse_list.php)-gclub (http://www.topstarclub.com/gclub.php)-บาคาร่าออนไลน์ (http://www.allonlinecasinonews.com/)

Gayle in MD
01-06-2012, 06:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, I'd like to add that the deficit concious GOP wasted time and money dragging out the confirmation of Warren. They came up with all these false objections when they were never going to confirm anyone.

That makes the whole GOP big fat liars.

Q </div></div>

ABSOLUTELY!!!



The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.