Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
QUOTE]A better question is: did President Obama not support the use of recess appointments by the Executive Office when necessary while he was a senator?

Thanks, but I'd like my questions answered first [Smile]

And of course, I seem hesitant to believe anyone on political suppositions without some sort of reference, even you Tom. So sorry to make it somewhat personal.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
The question is not one of changing one's mind, but how and why.
That is certainly a question, but not seemingly the one that JWatts is asking.
Indeed, I didn't ask that. But I will agree it is a pertinent question; and if Obama had provided a rationale that was expressed articulately for why he thought that it was a significantly more urgent issue now than it was under Bush, I would be more charitably inclined towards his position. As it is, this is pretty autocratic.

A question for the left on this board. Are you willing to give the next Republican President this power unreservedly? Or are you going to immediately change your position when the positions are reversed?

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
So if I stop you from doing X, but later I do X because I believe I need to do it more than I thought you needed to do it, that's fine.
Recently, a young woman shot a man who walked through her front door. We all agree, I'm sure, that most people should be stopped or dissuaded from shooting people. Is it wrong for her to have done it?
No, but I would call into question her beliefs and resolve if she previously held a belief that no one, under any circumstances, should kill another human being. Or for that matter if she earlier condemned an individual for doing the same thing she had just done.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
No, but I would call into question her beliefs and resolve if she previously held a belief that no one, under any circumstances, should kill another human being. Or for that matter if she earlier condemned an individual for doing the same thing she had just done.

To make this analogy more accurate, she would need to have been a member of a group that had actively prevented others from using Guns in the past.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts, aside from the fact that although you have asserted Obama changed his mind, you have yet to show show that he actually did, it would seem that a number of posts on this thread have addressed the question already. That's aside from the fact that Obama explicitly explained why he was making the appointment, basically answering the question before it was posed; or did you expect him to explain his decision making reference to the Bush presidency's decisions?

That being said, you use the word "unreservedly" - it would seem that there is a pretty wide gulf between allowing something to occur at a slower rate than in any other presidential term in the last 40 years and allowing something to occur unreservedly during a president's term.

Was it your intent to introduce this false dichotomy or was it an accident? There does seem to be a valid constitutional argument to be made here, but it has nothing to do with whether Obama supported recess appointments as a senator.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
JWatts, aside from the fact that although you have asserted Obama changed his mind, you have yet to show show that he actually did, it would seem that a number of posts on this thread have addressed the question already.

So your contention is basically that Senator Obama silently disagreed with Senate Majority Reid and the actions of the Democratic Senate under him.

My contention is that he agreed with his Party and House Leader's actions.

I'll let the reader decide which seems a more likely proposition.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
That's aside from the fact that Obama explicitly explained why he was making the appointment, basically answering the question before it was posed; or did you expect him to explain his decision making reference to the Bush presidency's decisions?

Yes, of course, I want to see why he thinks this recess appointment that may well provoke a Constitutional crisis, is of such importance that he must ignore over 80 years of precedent. A press release isn't exactly what I had in mind.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
That being said, you use the word "unreservedly" - it would seem that there is a pretty wide gulf between allowing something to occur at a slower rate than in any other presidential term in the last 40 years and allowing something to occur unreservedly during a president's term.

That's an outstanding statement. This is a serious Constitutional matter. It's not like he decided to forgo the annual White House Easter Egg hunt. Regardless of why he did it, it's clear that this represents a serious shift in power from the Congressional to the Executive branch.


quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Was it your intent to introduce this false dichotomy or was it an accident?

My question was not a false dichotomy. Either you are ok with All Presidents being able to ignore the Senate's procedures or you are not. If Obama can do it then certainly the next Republican President can do the exact same thing. It's not like you can declare in the future that President Obama only did this 4 times so there is a hard limit of 4 from now on out.

[ January 05, 2012, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To make this analogy more accurate, she would need to have been a member of a group that had actively prevented others from using Guns in the past.
Sure. Let's say she was a cop, and routinely busted people for using guns. In fact, she would sometimes sit silently while the chief of police frequently lectured people about how the improper and reckless use of guns was dangerous. Was she still wrong to shoot that guy?

[ January 05, 2012, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts, it now seems you are moving the goal posts to the point that I brought up; you are no longer talking about recess appointments and arguing that Obama was always against them before he became for them, but rather how he unilaterally interpreted Congress to be not in session - a completely different topic and one which is actually debatable.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
JWatts, it now seems you are moving the goal posts to the point that I brought up; you are no longer talking about recess appointments and arguing that Obama was always against them before he became for them, but rather how he unilaterally interpreted Congress to be not in session - a completely different topic and one which is actually debatable.

What, I'm not moving the goal posts! One idea does not preclude the others. Indeed, I was directly responding to the points you made.

I have stated that while I have no explicit proof that Obama was an advocate of the Democratic Senate's policies while he was a member of that group, that a reasonable person would conclude that he most likely supported them. Just because my charge is inductive doesn't mean it's false.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
To make this analogy more accurate, she would need to have been a member of a group that had actively prevented others from using Guns in the past.
Sure. Let's say she was a cop, and routinely busted people for using guns. In fact, she would sometimes sit silently while the chief of police frequently lectured people about how the improper and reckless use of guns was dangerous. Was she still wrong to shoot that guy?
I don't think you've followed. Never made a judgement on wether it was wrong or right to shoot the guy. Nor did I make a judgement on the President as to recess appointments. So you can stop asking if I think it was wrong if she shot the guy, or if I think it is wrong to make recess appointments.

What I did say is that I find is suspect when an individual conviently change their minds politically. So yeah, if the girl was a cop, and was busting OTHER COPS for shooting intruders, then yeah I would have to call into question her judgement after she shot an intruder and thought it was okay.

You seem to think that the primary factor is situational. I agree that the situation is a factor, but I don't know if President Obama actually believed that the situations that he now agrees are "okay" to conduct recess appointments, are also situations that he identified as it being "okay" when he was a Senator. You assume that he did. I don't think I will ever know, and the last person I would believe on the subject would be the man himself (oh, of course, I always believed that recess appointments were justified in these certain situations), and the second to last person I would believe is an Obama apologist.

I wouldn't believe the opinion of an Alabama fan on the quality of LSU's quarterback either, unless they demonstrated to me some sort of judgement in FAVOR of the LSU football team that would be detrimental in comparision to the Crimson Tide, and which I agree with.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the Democrats in the Senate were to match or exceed the level of obstructionism committed by the Republicans, then I would have no problem with a Republican President using the same recess appointment tactics that Obama did.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So yeah, if the girl was a cop, and was busting OTHER COPS for shooting intruders...
But that is the issue, isn't it? I am pointing out that from Obama's point of view, he has stated that he felt he had no choice but to make a recess appointment despite the fact that he's stated a general disapproval of recess appointments. This does not make him a hypocrite any more than a woman who shoots an intruder is a hypocrite if she spends her waking hours preventing people from shooting other people.

quote:
You assume that he did. I don't think I will ever know, and the last person I would believe on the subject would be the man himself...
This boils down to: I prefer to believe the man is being dishonest and hypocritical about this because I have already decided he is dishonest and hypocritical. I hope the analogy here at least alerts you to the fact that this is the least charitable possible interpretation of the available facts.

You acknowledge, I hope, that Congressional Republicans have been incredibly uncharitable -- and obstructionist -- regarding Obama's appointments, to the extent that it is actually jeopardizing the functions of government?

[ January 05, 2012, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
This boils down to: I prefer to believe the man is being dishonest and hypocritical about this because I have already decided he is dishonest and hypocritical.

Uhhh, no. I will instead state that I prefer to distrust an individual who seems to make convienient stance changes.

I really don't know to what extent the President is being dishonest and hipocrital. I don't think I ever will know. I would prefer to believe in all cases that he is not. I would prefer to believe the very best about the President, for no other reason then he is MY President. For that matter, I honestly do not see him as any more dishonest or hipocrital then any other recent President, which I alluded to earlier while speaking with JWatts.

But I'm sorry, I tend to be skeptical when a change in stance is politically expedient.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
This does not make him a hypocrite any more than a woman who shoots an intruder is a hypocrite if she spends her waking hours preventing people from shooting other people.

Hmmmm. You know, I think we agree on that one. LOL [Smile]
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

You acknowledge, I hope, that Congressional Republicans have been incredibly uncharitable -- and obstructionist -- regarding Obama's appointments, to the extent that it is actually jeopardizing the functions of government?

See. That's why I have a hard time trust your judgement on these things, Tom. You're always on and on and on about those evil little Republicans. Oh they're so devious. They're so bad bad bad.

And yet no complaint at all about the Democrats? Except perhaps that they are not liberal enough.

I respect that you can have such a point of view, but it differs so radically from my own. You're that Alabama fan who says that the sun rises and falls in the crack of Nick Saban's fourth point of contact. Nick Saban can do no wrong and the Crimson Tide is an unstoppable righteous machine, etc.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And yet no complaint at all about the Democrats? Except perhaps that they are not liberal enough.
I'm curious. What do you think I should complain about re: the Democrats currently in Congress, if not that they are woefully ineffective at implementing their agendas?

Regarding the recess appointment in question, for example, is it not your belief that Republicans have been stonewalling the appointment of any consumer advocate for as long as possible, in hopes that in so doing they can completely prevent any consumer protections -- one of Obama's major campaign promises -- from being implemented, at a time when consumers are arguably in more need of protection than any other in recent memory?

[ January 05, 2012, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

I'm curious. What do you think I should complain about re: the Democrats currently in Congress, if not that they are woefully ineffective at implementing their agendas?

LOL. You got me Tom! I have no idea. Forget about it.

quote:
Regarding the recess appointment in question, for example, is it not your belief that Republicans have been stonewalling the appointment of any consumer advocate for as long as possible, in hopes that in so doing they can completely prevent any consumer protections -- one of Obama's major campaign promises -- from being implemented, at a time when consumers are arguably in more need of protection than any other in recent memory?
YOU'RE RIGHT! [Eek!]
It's not my belief. In fact I have no opinion on the above piece of information. I don't know wether to believe it or disbelieve it. All I have is what I know, and what I believe. And my knowlege and faith do not touch upon the above subject.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
LOL. You got me Tom! I have no idea. Forget about it.
No, I'm serious. What do you think I -- or any reasonable person -- should complain about?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
So we're not arguing about hypocrisy. We're arguing about Obama's belief that he needed to appoint someone in this specific case more than Bush needed to appoint someone in some specific cases. Assuming Obama actually has some internal justification for that (and I assume he does, whether or not everyone here would agree with it), it's not a case of political double-speak at all.

So if I stop you from doing X, but later I do X because I believe I need to do it more than I thought you needed to do it, that's fine.

That sounds more like a partisan rationalization than an argument. Ergo, I believe my side needs to do X more than your side, so when your side does it, it's wrong, but when my side does it, it's fine, as long as I have some internal justification.

And that's all well and good, but a single shift on the issue in light of a person having gained a different perspective doesn't provide sufficient evidence to go on. If changes to support using pro forma sessions again once someone he opposes is in office, then there's a good case, but a single shift on a given issue isn't enough to go on.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm with Greg. If someone in my office isn't doing their share of a project, I can either go around them and get the job done despite them, or I can let the project fail and hope somehow they get blamed for the failure and I don't.

I think the more responsible choice for a business, and a country, is obvious.

[ January 05, 2012, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts, notwithstanding that members of political parties, especially in the USA federal system, are trained to say nothing when they don't support the party line, even if he did agree with the party's obstructionism (and I'm not saying he did) that still does not mean he was ever against the use of recess appointments as a policy; without specific statements from Obama regarding his opposition to recess appointments in general it could only be inferred that he supported hardball politics. In which case his current actions can actually be seen as consistent. Any reasonable person with a basic understanding of logic understands this [Wink]

You can bemoan the race to the bottom that current USA partisan politics has become, but pointing out Obama's actions specifically while ignoring the Republican policies that those actions are in response to is, well, simply partisan.

All this mud slinging is obscuring the larger questions that are important: what do you do about the legislative and executive branches's overreach, especially in the context of current hyper-partisanship? Should Congress be able to stop implementation of previously passed legislation by procedurally stonewalling valid appointments indefinitely for qualified and agreeable candidates? Should the President be able to do an end run around an intransigent Congress?

The best case would that this 'crisis' will actually force Congress to 'grow up' and reform its procedures in light of modern, entrenched abuse. Otherwise they will facilitate even more power grabs from the executive branch, and nobody wants that.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts wrote
quote:
To make this analogy more accurate, she would need to have been a member of a group that had actively prevented others from using Guns in the past.
OK, show us the evidence that Obama has actively prevented others from using recess appointments. Otherwise, your analogy refinement is verging on the ridiculous.

To summarize:

JWatts accuses Obama of blatant hypocrisy. That is based exclusively on Obama allegedly opposing recess appointments as a Senator.

The sum total evidence to support this allegation is that a Democratic leader opposed recess appointments as part of a political strategy while Obama was a Democratic senator.
No quotes from Obama, even out of context, no hearsay, no hints in his writings, no votes, no nothing. Just the fact that the leader of his party felt that way.

Step back a bit and consider the strength of this evidence, and how vociferously JWatts has defended his allegation based on it. I am at a loss to figure out why someone would flog this point so hard when there is nothing to support it.

I don't object to the premise that Obama is a hypocrite. I object to JWatts implication that his opinion is backed by fact or logic, when it is not. I object to his refusal to provide sources, and his belittling of people who ask for them.

If someone actually has some evidence, I would understand this conversation. But since there is none, what is the argument?

Making allegations and refusing to back them up with facts, and refusing to back down when exposed is the hallmark of a flame board. I don't want Ornery to be another flame board, so I am calling JWatts on this.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That is based exclusively on Obama allegedly opposing recess appointments as a Senator.
As I read it JWatt's position was that Obama was previously in favor of pro forma sessions being used as a tactic to prevent undesirable recess appointments, not that he was generally opposed to recess appointments.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
After 3 pages I'm struggling to find the meat here. It seems that the argument is that Obama has been hypocritical because he is a hypocrite and that's what hypocrites do. The facts to support that can only be found here in their absence, but facts are facts, after all.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
..Obama regarding his opposition to recess appointments in general it could only be inferred that he supported hardball politics. In which case his current actions can actually be seen as consistent. Any reasonable person with a basic understanding of logic understands this [Wink]

So you are saying that Obama has consistently supported hardball politics. Well by that premise, this stance on recess appointments is a reflection of partisan hardball politics.

But since he has consistently publicly derided hardball politics, that would be a point against your premise. However, he has almost always derided Republican's use of hardball politics more than the Democrats use of hardball politics. Which would actually be an example of him using hardball politics.

Your premise has merit. However, I'm not sure it directly contradicts my premise. He can easily play hardball and still be a hypocrite.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
You can bemoan the race to the bottom that current USA partisan politics has become, but pointing out Obama's actions specifically while ignoring the Republican policies that those actions are in response to is, well, simply partisan.

And that statement is complete horse ****! I said at the very start of this thread that I didn't believe that the pro-forma sessions should stand and that doesn't change which ever party initiated them. I believe that Obama should have the power of using recess appointments.

Shouldn't stand might not be the best phrase. And if the Supreme Court weighs in, I'll certainly defer to their judgement. But for now I'm going to go with 'sleazy'.

Pro Forma sessions were sleazy when Harry Reid initiated them against Bush and they remain sleazy now when used against Obama.

I think Pyrtolin's premise sounds reasonable that the House led by Speaker Boehner have forced the pro forma session and the tactics remain sleazy.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
The best case would that this 'crisis' will actually force Congress to 'grow up' and reform its procedures in light of modern, entrenched abuse. Otherwise they will facilitate even more power grabs from the executive branch, and nobody wants that.

The Executive branch has been growing in power for the last 70 years. It's not the Executive branch I'm worried about. I wasn't worried about George Bush's power being threatened in the last decade and I'm not worried about Barack Obama's presidential power being threatened now.

I'm curious were you worried about 'power grabs from the executive branch' when Bush was President or is your stance purely partisan?

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way do any of you dispute that Senator Harry Reid is a blatant hypocrite in this case?
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
By the way do any of you dispute that Senator Harry Reid is a blatant hypocrite in this case?

It depends on his future stances. Again, one change of position isn't enough to judge; we need to see if he flips depending on who is in power.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts, do you believe that the hypocrisy that you allege to have occurred in this situation is morally worse than the actions of the Republicans that the recess appointment addressed? If so, why? If not, why are you harping on a lesser evil that is occurring in response to a greater one?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
JWatts, do you believe that the hypocrisy that you allege to have occurred in this situation is morally worse than the actions of the Republicans that the recess appointment addressed? If so, why? If not, why are you harping on a lesser evil that is occurring in response to a greater one?

I believe that the hypocritical actions that President Obama took will make the situation much worse not better.

What the Republican's were doing was wrong, but they were following the precedent laid down by the Democrats 4 years ago.

Obama should have either followed Bush's lead and negotiated a solution with Congress or initiated a court challenge to the pro forma Senate sessions.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm curious were you worried about 'power grabs from the executive branch' when Bush was President or is your stance purely partisan?
I think I wasn't clear and you misunderstood: not 'grabbing power from the exective branch' but rather 'power grabs [originating] from the executive branch.'
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What the Republican's were doing was wrong, but they were following the precedent laid down by the Democrats 4 years ago.
Do you believe that Democrats, as recently as four years ago, laid down this particular precedent?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
What the Republican's were doing was wrong, but they were following the precedent laid down by the Democrats 4 years ago.
Do you believe that Democrats, as recently as four years ago, laid down this particular precedent?
Yes, I do. At least for an entire inter-session period.

[ January 06, 2012, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
I'm curious were you worried about 'power grabs from the executive branch' when Bush was President or is your stance purely partisan?
I think I wasn't clear and you misunderstood: not 'grabbing power from the exective branch' but rather 'power grabs [originating] from the executive branch.'
Oh, yes. I misread that. I agree that Congress should be more functional and that the modern US Executive branch has plenty of power.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts, do you believe that the hypocrisy that you allege to have occurred in this situation is morally worse than the actions of the Republicans that the recess appointment addressed? If so, why? If not, why are you harping on a lesser evil that is occurring in response to a greater one?

(I am asking again because you did not address my question the first time)

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, I do. At least for an entire inter-session period.
You may want to study this issue, then. The idea of filibustering/stalling presidential appointments is not exactly a young one.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
If so, why? If not, why are you harping on a lesser evil that is occurring in response to a greater one?

(I am asking again because you did not address my question the first time)

Sorry you didn't like my response, but I ain't your mom or Burger King. You'll just have to deal with it as is.

Perhaps you should take this line of questioning over to the various Republican bashing threads. Or do Lefties's creating threads with names like 'A surge of Santorum (eww!)' get a free pass from you? I fail to see you questioning their responses with nearly this much vigor.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of people dodging awkward questions, I'd still like Grant to answer mine.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you're concerned, you could point out some factual misrepresentations in that thread that we can ponder and respond to. The premise of this thread is a highly partisan charge against the President's character that so far is unsupported. Unless you can fill in the missing information by answering some of the challenges (including mine), it would be reasonable to say that this thread is based on an ad hominem. At least on that other thread we're saying things that don't much depend on hard facts and are therefore indisputable and fun to read, too.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For instance, I'm adding another such comment to that thread right now!
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The premise of this thread is a highly partisan charge against the President's character"

[LOL] Oh yes, I've gone after President Obama so fiercely here. But of course none of the other threads are highly partisan. And of course all of the comments are completely based on well documented evidence. [Roll Eyes]

quote:

In their desperate bid to find a Republican candidate who's not the too-moderate (or too-mormon perhaps?) Romney, the religious right and the tea party crowd seem to have finally, through a hilarious process of elimination, settled on Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum.

Oh, that's perfectly unbiased there.

Oh hey Al you threw this charge out:
quote:
Latest rumor going around is that Nixon was gay.
I'm sure you have a ton of evidence to back it up.

Oh wait, I guess not:
quote:
The evidence for it is, well, evidence isn't all that meaningful these days.
And there was this response:
quote:
Just because he was a cuckold doesn't make him gay.
And let's pile on with some sex jokes.
quote:
Oh and I'm disappointed by the mainstream media. None of them picked up the "Santorum Comes From Rear" headline that's been percolating through the blogosphere and alternative press
And then it gets serious:
quote:
On the gay rights front, five to one says he's foaming sticking specifically to the sort of anti-gay talking points that won't goad the spineless ****s in the media into branding him the bigoted **** that he is.
But no clearly I'm being the hyper-partisan here.


There are three or four threads running on this board specifically to individually bash Republican candidates. And not one of you thinks that's in anyway untoward, because your bias is so deep you can't see the forest for the trees.

But I make a fairly reasoned argument that Obama's actions were probably right, but still hypocritical and none of you can tolerate it.

[Mad]

[ January 06, 2012, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1